Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Publicly Procured Food

Andrew Selous: What estimate he has made of the proportion of publicly procured food that was British in 2006.

David Miliband: My Department does not hold that information, but I have commissioned work to determine the proportion of publicly procured food that is British. I am optimistic that it will be completed by the late autumn of this year, and I will place the information in the Library of the House.

Andrew Selous: How do the Government justify feeding hospital patients and service personnel so much food that does not meet British standards? In my area, the Bedfordshire food mark ensures that Bedfordshire schoolchildren eat the county's food. Will the Government ensure that publicly procured food meets the red tractor assured food standard?

David Miliband: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must repeat that I do not expect hon. Members to read a supplementary question into the record. I say that in the nicest possible way, but they should hear what Ministers have to say in answer to a question, and respond orally.

David Miliband: I am sure that, by his reference to standards, the hon. Gentleman would not want to suggest that unsafe food was somehow being fed to hospital patients. I am concerned that, inadvertently, some people listening might have got that impression, and it is certainly not the case. Obviously, I believe that it is important that we give British producers the maximum opportunity to ensure that their food is supplied to public services such as hospitals, schools and the Prison Service. That is what the public sector food procurement initiative is designed to do, and it is helping local producers around the country to get their produce into the public sector. That is good and is consistent with the trade rules that ensure that our producers are able to export overseas as well as supply domestically.

Kitty Ussher: Given that we are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should use our purchasing power to support subsistence food farmers abroad, as well as home-grown produce? To that end, will he join my campaign to make Burnley a fair trade town?

David Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend's passion for Burnley—

Lindsay Hoyle: Pity about the football team!

David Miliband: I cannot save the football team, but I have heard a rumour that Mr. Alastair Campbell is going to be its next manager, and perhaps that will be the source of its salvation. That will be in addition to his memoirs, rather than as an alternative to them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) makes a good point. The best thing for fair trade around the world, and for a fair deal for British producers, is an open trading regime. I am sure that, like me, she will remember that there was a ban in the 1990s on British producers selling beef overseas. That was very dangerous. Now, 5,000 tonnes of beef are being exported every month, and that is a good thing. However, open trade is equally essential to people all around the world who have a right to develop in a way that means that they can support themselves. It is possible to achieve a balance. We are trying, rightly, to give every encouragement to British producers, but they will prosper best in an open and liberal trading environment.

Nicholas Winterton: I represent the constituency of Macclesfield in the county of Cheshire, which is heavily agricultural. Does the Secretary of State agree that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is relevant? The best boost that he could give today's hard-pressed farmers is to ensure that the food used in the public services, the Army and schools meets the red tractor standard and is purchased from British producers. Surely we should back our farmers, just as so many other countries in Europe and elsewhere back theirs.

David Miliband: We certainly should do that, and I can give the hon. Gentleman some happy tidings. Fresh from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs canteen, I can report that more than 80 per cent. of our fish is domestically sourced, as is more than 90 per cent. of our pork, nearly 100 per cent. of our dairy products and fully 100 per cent. of our eggs.
	However, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) makes a serious point about backing British producers. There are two approaches, one of which is to say that we should have a protectionist regime and that we should force our public sector suppliers to buy British only. However, that would be damaging, because Governments around the world would retaliate against British producers. It is far better to say, alternatively, that British farmers will prosper best when theirs is the best produce available in an open and fair market, and that is what we are trying to achieve.
	I urge the hon. Member for Macclesfield to back the public sector food procurement initiative, which tries to ensure that our farmers get into the retail and public sector chains that are so important. They can win on quality, and do not need special favours.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want good local food chains and that there is no better way to provide them than by using county farm estates—smallholdings still owned by county councils and other authorities? Using those farmers to supply our schools and hospitals would be the best of all solutions.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I went to the Oxford farming conference in January I specifically pointed out that all our experience shows that the urge to buy local is growing fast. The red tractor has an important place as a mark of British standards, but, equally, local produce often has the provenance, quality and attachment that people look for, which is important. My hon. Friend's point is important and I shall look into it.

James Paice: I assure the Secretary of State that nobody seeks protectionism for British producers. The public sector procurement initiative was launched four years ago, yet in response to my questions to Departments, seven do not know how much of their food is British and three others, including Health and Education and Skills—two of the big ones—will not answer the question. Even the Prime Minister, who had the brass neck to front up the Country Land and Business Association's "just ask" campaign a few weeks ago, does not know how much food served at No. 10 is British, so what sort of example is that? Is not it now clear that there is no way to judge whether the initiative is actually working and whether there has been any change after four years? There is no way of knowing how much of the £2 billion of taxpayers' money is delivering the goods. The Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point—he is not happy about something.

David Miliband: I am sure you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that Opposition spokesmen actually listen to the answers given at the beginning. If the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) had bothered to listen he would know that in the course of this year we shall have the figures he seeks so zealously. I am sorry he seeks to run down projects that are helping British producers in every region of the country to supply the public sector. I am sorry he seeks to run down the English Farming and Food Partnership, which many people in the industry think has made an important contribution. I suggest that rather than bleating he should actually support some of those campaigns.

Carbon Emissions

Adrian Bailey: What recent meetings he has had with representatives of UK commerce and industry to discuss the contribution of environmental management systems to reducing carbon emissions.

Ian Pearson: My ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with UK industry representatives about a wide range of environmental issues, including the role that environmental management systems can play in helping to reduce carbon emissions.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What conversations has he had with the construction industry and developers to promote a regulatory framework that in turn will promote geothermal and other energy-saving devices in the residential and commercial property sectors?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the potential for geothermal energy. If we are to move to zero carbon homes—as we must if we are to avoid dangerous climate change—we shall need a host of renewable technologies in our new housing stock. Geothermal energy, where appropriate, can work and provide a cost-effective solution. There are obviously other forms of renewable energy, such as ground source heat pumps, solar, voltaics, wind turbines and district heating systems, which also have a role to play. We are looking into how we can use regulation to encourage greater use of renewables through the planning system, as we think that is an important way forward.

Julie Kirkbride: I do not know how often the Minister goes shopping, but if he walked down the nation's high streets he would notice that many shops leave their doors open to provide easy access for their customers, while keeping the heating at full blast to make customers comfortable inside the store. Does he agree that if we are to get the commercial sector to take climate change seriously, we urgently need a climate change Bill to provide a framework in which everyone has to make their contribution to dealing with the problem?

Ian Pearson: I certainly agree that we need a climate change Bill, which is why one was announced in the Queen's Speech. The hon. Lady is probably aware that we are consulting on a proposal to introduce either a benchmarking system or an energy performance commitment, which would affect large energy-intensive users, including many supermarkets and other high street properties. This afternoon, I shall be visiting the Trade Association Forum, which covers 300 trade bodies and 500,000 companies that are signing a declaration on climate change, so I think our high streets are increasingly aware of their carbon footprint and want to do something about it.

Barry Sheerman: When my hon. Friend talks to the private sector, will he take into account the fact that it has an enormous leadership role to play in meeting climate change? Does he agree that Government regulation and that sort of thing can go some way to putting ourselves in a position to meet the challenges, but that if we could harness and encourage some of the very innovative work going on in the private and the financial services sectors, we could do something serious about climate change?

Ian Pearson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the private sector has a vital role in avoiding dangerous climate change. Through the EU emissions trading scheme, some of our biggest companies are already actively involved in a cap and trade scheme. I have already mentioned the energy performance commitment and the proposal on benchmarking. There are other ways in which the UK Government can help support the private sector to avoid climate change. We have funded Envirowise, for example, which has helped business save about £1 billion through increasing resource efficiency and avoiding waste. We also fund the Carbon Trust, which works with companies that want to avoid climate change, and I think that business increasingly recognises that there is value and importance in reducing CO2.

Dairy Industry

Roger Williams: What recent discussions he has had on the state of the dairy industry.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food, Lord Rooker, regularly discuss the dairy industry with industry representatives and other interested parties.

Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the NFU conference and he will know that farmers are determined to play a part in producing a sustainable food chain, particularly in dairy products. However,  Farmers Guardian,  Country Living and Waitrose are launching a campaign, "fair trade for British farmers" so that agriculture can regain profitability and deliver those public goods that are so highly prized. What role does the Minister believe his Department and the Government can play in the campaign?

Ben Bradshaw: We certainly welcome the initiative. He might have heard that Sainsbury's has today announced an increased price for milk, and I believe that Tesco did so yesterday. Those are moves in the right direction, as we have always said that there should be a sustainable industry and a fair price. However, that is a matter to be determined between the industry and retailers—under the auspices, of course, of the competition rules and so on—and not a matter for the Government.

Brian Jenkins: I was in agreement with what my hon. Friend said until the end of his answer, but he must surely realise that in a competitive market environment, supermarkets are going to force the price down, even though they are making gestures now. They have no responsibility to provide food for this country, whereas the Government do have responsibility to ensure a continuation of the supply of provisions. Surely we do have an interest and we must be a stakeholder at those talks.

Ben Bradshaw: We are regularly involved in talks, as I have already pointed out. My hon. Friend is wrong to imply that the supermarkets do not have an interest in maintaining a sustainable dairy sector. I think that they do, and they have recognised that in the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Lord Rooker and I have had with them. We are pretty much self-sufficient in raw milk, which shows that they do have an interest. I would not be churlish about the recent price increases. I also think it important to remember that there is a massive gap of about 12p a litre in the difference between some of the most and some of the least efficient milk producers. We want to ensure that some of the least efficient get up to the standards of the most efficient.

Michael Jack: The Minister will understand that much of the future well-being of the dairy industry will depend on the resolution of problems connected with bovine TB and the EU dairy regime. May I raise with him the question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State so that this House of Commons is given an opportunity to debate all these matters in a comprehensive discussion on agriculture, bearing in mind that we have not had such a debate since December 2002?

Ben Bradshaw: These are matters for those who organise the business of the House, not for us. The right hon. Gentleman can always apply for a debate in Westminster Hall, or his Front-Bench colleagues might like to hold such a debate on one of their Opposition days.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend is well aware that farm prices for farmers' households have dropped to about £13,000. That figure has dropped by more than 60 per cent. in four years. That is a tragedy and it is not sustainable for dairy farmers to receive such low incomes. What will the Minister do to be an honest broker and to try to ensure that all supermarkets give a fair price to farmers, at the same time as ensuring better value for customers? Farm-gate prices are dropping, but at the same time prices are increasing for customers in the shops. We need to ensure that farming can survive and be sustainable.

Ben Bradshaw: I have already referred to some of the increases that have recently been announced. I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to say that farm incomes dropped again this year; I think that I am right in saying that average farm incomes increased this year, as they did last year. He is right about the dairy sector, which has been going through a particularly difficult time. As we are talking about farm incomes, it is worth pointing out that farm land prices rose again substantially last year and are now at record levels.

Geoffrey Cox: Last March, the Minister announced a consultation on the question of badger culling and dealing with the wildlife reservoir. In answer to a question in the House, he told me that the time for a decision was nigh. When will the decision be taken to do something about bovine TB, to relieve the plight of hundreds of farmers in my constituency?

Ben Bradshaw: I am aware of the problem faced by farmers in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I have met him and representatives of his local farming community and the area is not far from my constituency. We are well aware that TB is a difficult problem. However, we also want to be careful to ensure that any decision on badger culling is guided by the science. We do not want to initiate any sort of action that could be counter-productive. As he well knows, one of the things that all the science says is that a piecemeal, patchy culling regime for badgers could make matters worse. One of the other myths that a number of people still repeat and that it is worth exploding while we are on the subject is that it would be possible to have a cull of sick badgers. That is not possible. One cannot tell whether a live badger has TB. One can tell only through a blood test. Any badger cull would have to include healthy badgers, as well as sick badgers.

Elfyn Llwyd: Going back to the dairy industry, may I urge the Minister to do more? Currently, an average of three dairy farmers a day leave the industry altogether. Dairy farmers obtain about 17 to 18&frac12;p per litre. In the big supermarkets, the price is 50p-plus. There is a huge gap there. Somebody is ripping somebody off. My Friend the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) mentioned fair trade. It is high time that the supermarkets traded fairly with the dairy farmers.

Ben Bradshaw: The Competition Commission is looking into that very issue, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. One of the problems that it highlighted when it published its interim findings a short time ago was that it had not had many complaints from farmers. It is important that farmers who share his concern, or their representatives in the farming unions—either at a UK-wide level or in Wales—provide examples to the Competition Commission, which has made it quite clear that it would accept anonymous examples so that people do not need to be worried about any penalty that they may suffer as a result of giving that evidence. I appeal to farmers to do that.

Peter Tapsell: Why are dairy farmers in my Lincolnshire constituency finding it so desperately difficult to earn a living? They are not inefficient. If the fault does not lie with the supermarkets, where does it lie?

Ben Bradshaw: This is an extremely complex area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates. As I indicated in my answer to a previous question, there is a huge variation in the costs for dairy farmers. I am afraid to have to tell him that, according to the information that I have, many dairy farmers do not even know their own costs of production. That is a problem. Yes, there is a role for Government and for the supermarkets, but there is also a role for the industry, and particularly for farmers whose production costs are much higher than those of a number of others, who manage to operate profitably because their costs are much less.

Climate Change

Si�n Simon: What progress he is making in involving (a) G8, (b) EU and (c) developing countries in talks on tackling climate change.

Gordon Banks: What steps he is taking to promote international action to tackle climate change.

David Miliband: We are working closely with the German presidency of both the EU and the G8the group of eight leading industrialised countriesto keep climate change high on the international agenda in the run-up to the next UN conference of the parties to the 1992 convention, which will be held in Indonesia this December. We regularly discuss the issues with developing countries, including India and China, to strengthen bilateral co-operation and help to frame future action.

Si�n Simon: Has the Secretary of State considered whether a policy of isolation and alienation from our European partners would be a good way to build global consensus on matters such as climate change? Does he think that a Tory-style dose of little Englandism is the way to build the consensus that will enable developing countries to break the link between economic growth and pollution growth, as this country has done, under Labour, for the first time since the industrial revolution?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have considered whether we are more likely to achieve change in the European Union by making an alliance with France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and Spain, and we decided that on balance it is far better to have an alliance with those countries. We have great respect for the Czech Republic and our bilateral relations with it, but I have to tell hon. Members that an Anglo-Czech alliance on its own would more resemble the Brothers Grimm than an effective coalition for change.

Gordon Banks: As the Secretary of State will remember, on Tuesday he attended the Press Gallery writing competition and met one of my constituents, Andrew Mason, the Scottish regional finalist, whose work encapsulates the challenges and difficulties that China and India pose to the issue of climate change. Does my right hon. Friend think that the climate change Bill will be a tool that we can use not only domestically, but internationally, to work with developed and developing nations?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because when my colleagues and I meet our Indian and Chinese counterparts, the first question they ask is whether, as we are asking them to make changes, they can be sure that we will make changes to the way in which we live and work. They can see that over the past 10 years our economy has grown by 28 per cent., while our greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 8 per cent. They can see that that is possible, but they want to know whether we will go further. It should be a huge encouragement to Members right across the House to know that we will introduce a climate change Bill, with, I hope, cross-party support, that will make this country the first in the world to set itself on a clear path to becoming a low-carbon economy by 2050. That is an important point, which, as it happens, was raised by my hon. Friend and his constituent when we met on Tuesday, and I applaud him for the work that he is doing.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely when the Bill will be introduced? We know that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny, which I welcome, but when will we see the Bill?

Dennis Skinner: When we have sorted out the House of Lords.

David Miliband: I know that the voice of the House was loud and clear yesterday, but we will not wait for the conclusion of House of Lords reform before publishing the climate change Bill. It will be published on Tuesday for pre-legislative scrutiny, which we planned to provide from the beginning. I applaud Conservative Front Benchers for recognising the maturity of an approach that considers pre-legislative scrutiny to be an essential part of building a national consensus on the issue. I hope that there will be real engagement with the Bill, not just in the House but in businesses and schools across the country. Accompanying the Bill, there will be a series of documents, which will be available for all Members of the House to use, with their constituents, to explain the issue, the choices that we face, and the way in which we can all make a difference, whether in government, in business, or as citizens, in helping to tackle the global problem of climate change.

Mark Pritchard: Given the record levels of imports from China, does the Secretary of State agree that perhaps the best way to help stop climate change is to buy British? That would not only reduce the food miles and manufacturing miles that result from products coming in from China on ships and aircraft, but would be good for Britain and its manufacturing industry.

David Miliband: I am always happy to encourage people to buy British, but if underlying the hon. Gentleman's question is the suggestion that if all global trade ceased, the environment would be better off, I will have to differ with him. It is possible to combine development with respect for the environment. The old choice was between development and the environment; the new choice is between whether development is high carbon or low carbon. It is essential that we take the right measures to reduce carbon emissions in our country and in the industrialised world, but we must also fulfil our responsibilities to ensure that developing countriesnot just China and India but developing countries in Africacan make that low-carbon choice. The hon. Gentleman suggests that switching off our lights is a good thing; so is changing to a renewable energy supplier, because if our electricity comes from wind we can have as many lights on as we like without fear of doing damage to the environment.

Bill Olner: The Secretary of State has mentioned talks that he has had with other countries about the important issue of climate change, but has he had any words with other Government Departments, because ways to reduce energy include the use of smart metering and LED lighting? Should not such measures be brought into building regulations, particularly for new commercial and residential properties?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The era when the electricity meter was under the stairs and was looked at only once a quarter or once a month was an era that did not care about energy efficiency. The era when the smart meter or the real-time display is next to people's light switch in the corner of the room and allows us to see not only how much energy we are using but the cost that we are incurring and the saving that we make through energy efficiency is the era of the future. Such matters will be at the heart of the energy White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish in the next few months.

Christopher Huhne: The international dimension in tackling climate change is crucial. I have heard the Secretary of State tell us that it is crucial to have moral authority and standing in what we are doing at home. In the light of that, what does he make of yesterday's Sustainable Development Commission report showing that his own Department increased carbon emissions by 10.2 per cent. between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, which according to my calculations is more than three times as much as the country as a whole? Does he not believe that it is time for his Department to start practising what it preaches?

David Miliband: First, let me say that I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not use this occasion to apologise to the House for his absurd denunciation of the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny in his press release of a couple of weeks ago. For someone who bleats on about respect for Parliament to then denounce pre-legislative scrutiny is an example of precisely the double standards that one expects from the Liberal party.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman' perfectly legitimate question, the obvious answer to the Sustainable Development Commission is that the Government must do better, and that is what we are determined to do.

Colin Challen: Will my right hon. Friend add the Commonwealth to the list of international organisations that he has talks with on climate change? He might be aware that of all African Commonwealth countries, only South Africa has benefited under Kyoto with about six projects being approved under the clean development mechanism. None of the other poor Commonwealth countries in Africa has benefited at all. If we are to address the issue of equity as defined in the United Nations framework convention on climate change, surely my right hon. Friend will support initiatives to develop talks on climate change in the Commonwealth.

David Miliband: I am delighted to be able to say to my hon. Friend that I have agreed to speak at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting on climate change in London in November precisely to pick up the point that he makes. He will know from his work with GLOBEthe Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environmentthat it is important not only to have Government to Government contacts and business to business contacts, but that parliamentarians around the world have a crucial role to play on this issue. His reference to the Commonwealth is well placed, and when one is thinking about how the Commonwealth can make itself increasingly relevant in the 21st century, this is a key issue.

Peter Ainsworth: I know that I am referring to comments of a couple of weeks ago, but may I congratulate the Secretary of State on his remarkably astute remarks about the likely unpopularity of the Chancellor once he becomes Prime Minister? May I also say that the Secretary of State is right to be cagey about taking on that job himself, not least on the basis of the hash he is making of his current responsibilities at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his supplementary to the question on the Order Paper.

Peter Ainsworth: To have any credibility on climate change with the G8, the European Union or the developing world, it is vital that we lead by example. Setting aside the target for CO2 cuts under the Kyoto treaty, which we are likely to meet because of actions taken under the previous Conservative Government, can the Secretary of State name a single climate change-related target set by this Government in the last 10 years that we are going to meet?

David Miliband: As the representative of the party that opposed the climate change levy and its associated agreements, which have taken 28 million tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere, it might be fitting if the hon. Gentleman showed a bit of modesty.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is keen to talk about one-planet living, but given that answer, people will start asking what planet he is living on. The international community can look, as we can, at the Government's record on meeting their own targets: CO2 emissionsfailed; switch to green taxationfailed; energy efficiency targetsfailed; renewable energy targetsfailed. This week we hear from the Sustainable Development Commission that his own Department has increased energy consumption and waste, and that a drastic change in approach is needed. What right has he, his Department or the Government to lecture anyone internationally or in the United Kingdom about climate change?

David Miliband: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been taking lessons in opposition from his colleague on the Liberal Front Bench, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). He knows a lot about the topic and he could make a constructive contribution. As we are the only country in the world that is on track to more than double its Kyoto commitments, as this country has been leading the way on the economics of climate change through the Stern review, and as Al Gore, who most people would accept is an authentic figure in the campaign against climate change, says that this country should be proud of the leadership that it has offered over the past 10 years both domestically and internationally, the hon. Gentleman would be far better off thinking how he will fill the void in his own policies before he starts denouncing ours.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend is aware that the UK takes over the presidency of the UN Security Council in April this year. He will agree, I am sure, that global warming is a matter of international security. Will he therefore repeat the leadership role that we played when we held the presidency of the EU and G8 in 2005, and ensure that climate change becomes an agenda item for the UN Security Council for the first time in its history, which will demonstrate the urgency that the issue deserves?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The Foreign Secretary and I had dinner with the new Secretary-General of the UN in December, before he took up his post. It was extremely encouraging to hear the new UN Secretary-General pick up the mantle from Kofi Annan. One of the last things that Kofi Annan said as Secretary-General of the UN was that one of his biggest regrets was that in his 10 years in office, he had not put the main UN machinery at the heart of the battle against climate change. The suggestion that my hon. Friend makes is important. It is only through the UN and United Nations framework convention that we can have legally binding treaty obligations. All the work that is being done through the European Union, the Group of Eight and the Gleneagles dialogue is vital preparatory work, but in the end it must be in the UN forum that we make progress. My hon. Friend's call is an important one.

Warm Home Zone Scheme

Joan Walley: What provisions exist in the warm home zone scheme to employ local contractors.

Ian Pearson: Warm zones is an initiative designed to reduce fuel poverty and promote energy efficiency on a local area basis. Warm zone schemes are a private enterprise managed by Warm Zones Ltd. Contractors are appointed by the warm zones in accordance with relevant procurement processes.

Joan Walley: It is important that we tackle climate change though energy efficiency measures at home. I welcome the two schemes operating in Stoke-on-Trent, the warm zone front and the warm homes scheme. It is now possible for people to get grants of up to 2,700 for central heating through the Warm Front scheme, but because there are contractors outside the area, some people are having difficulty finding the extra matching cost. As part of the work that is being done in the warm zone in Stoke-on-Trent, will he consider how we can get more local contractors, in the light of the sustainable procurement policy introduced by the Government this week?

Ian Pearson: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to tackling climate change through local area-based initiatives such as warm zones. We need more warm zones or even low or zero carbon zones for the future. Putting together the Government's Warm Front programme with the energy efficiency commitment on a local basis, we can make real improvements on a house-to-house basis. On the level of financial assistance provided, the current maximum is 2,700, as my hon. Friend mentioned, or 4,000 where it is necessary to fit an oil-fired central heating system. We are reviewing the grant maximum because one in seven or one in eight people who require central heating systems are being asked to make a financial contribution. In many cases that can be found from elsewhere, but it is right that we consider carefully whether we need to raise the grant maximum, because we are dealing with vulnerable households that would find it difficult to pay the extra amount.

Jeremy Wright: In support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), the grant maxima is adequate in many cases. The problem is that approved contractors have charged 1,000 more than local contractors in some cases in Warwickshire. If the scheme were extended to those local contractors, the grant would not only go further for the individual client, but the scheme as a whole would help more people.

Ian Pearson: I assure the House that the process of selecting contractors for the Warm Front programme is open and transparent. The process is competitive, and it is the basis on which contractors are appointed. The programme is being independently evaluated by a firm of accountants called White Young Green, which I have met. I have also looked at the vendor-rating system, which is operated by the Eaga partnership, and the process of selecting contractors. I know that people have compared Warm Front installers with other contractors in the local area. Such comparisons are not always fair, because the Warm Front process includes the programme costs and the additional benefit of an annual service check, so some of the criticisms do not compare like with like. However, I am open to any evidence that hon. Members want to submit about pricing, and we are currently reviewing the issue.

Eric Illsley: Will my hon. Friend examine the competence of some of the contractors employed within those schemes throughout the country? I have been alarmed by recent reports of pure incompetence by some contractors employed on those schemes, which may be symptomatic of a fall in standards across the gas-fitting industry. For example, when an elderly lady had her boiler repaired by a contractor through the Warm Front scheme, the contractor made a basic mistake and left the flame at such a poor level that the boiler simply emitted carbon monoxide whenever it was operating. That is an example of the poor standards among some of the contractors employed by the Warm Front scheme, and I urge my hon. Friend to look into the matter.

Ian Pearson: Nobody should accept poor standards, and this Government do not. However, let me set that in the context of the Warm Front programme. From 2000 to 2008, the Government will have spent some 1.6 billion on the Warm Front programme. Some 230,000 jobs a year are undertaken through the Warm Front programme, so it is not surprising that performance is not satisfactory in some cases. However, less than 1 per cent. of jobs result in a complaint to the Warm Front programme, and 96 per cent. of those complaints are resolved satisfactorily. As I have said, the installers are rated by a vendor-rating system, and poor performance leads to reduced work or no work in the future. I am happy to examine specific cases, and if my hon. Friend wants to contact me, I will be happy to talk to him.

Gregory Barker: Despite the excellent work of warm home zones and the Warm Front scheme, why after 10 long years is energy efficiency per se still not being deployed with sufficient ambition and scale to drive down carbon emissions? One third of new homes fail to meet the Government's unambitious existing targets, yet no one is ever prosecuted. A new British home uses 65 per cent. more energy than a Swedish one, and the Environmental Audit Committee reckons that housing emissions are set to double by 2050. What hope is there of a real step change in energy efficiency, when the great clunking fist, which has been such a brake on progress for a decade, is now a shoo-in for Prime Minister?

Ian Pearson: It is simply not true to say that we have not made progress in making our homes more energy efficient. We have consistently ratcheted up building standards, so that the new homes that are being built nowadays are far more energy efficient than those that were built just a few years ago. As for our existing housing stock, the Warm Front programme and the energy efficiency commitmentEECare making significant progress in terms of helping to improve the thermal efficiency of our existing houses. The EEC has been increased from EEC1 to EEC2. We are currently discussing how we move further with the EEC3 programme for 2008 to 2011, and I expect it to be double that of EEC2. That shows the great strides that we have made, and our ambition as a Government to make our homes far more energy efficient for the future.

Drought Orders

Andrew Gwynne: What assessment he has made of the effect of recent rainfall on the need for new drought orders in summer 2007.

Ian Pearson: The UK has had six months of above average rainfall. The outlook for water supply is much improved and the likelihood of drought orders this summer is therefore low. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Andrew Gwynne: Coming from the infamously rainy Greater Manchester, we often wonder about the need for drought orders at all.
	One of the main factors in these problems is that of water leaks. What pressure is my hon. Friend's Department putting on the water companies to ensure that they tackle that issue by reaching their water leakage targets and improving the infrastructure so that in future years we do not have the same problems?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the issue of leakage, which is the system's Achilles heel. Most water companies are meeting the leakage targets that have been set by Ofwat; some, however, are not, and that is simply unacceptable. We expect Ofwat, as the regulator, to take a robust approach with companies that successively fail to meet their leakage targets. I have also asked it to undertake a review of the system of setting leakage targets, which does not command the confidence or understanding of the general public. In future, issues of sustainable water use must be clearly built into that system. I expect Ofwat to report later this year about sustainable leakage levels.

Nigel Evans: I am even further north than the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and we are more interested in building arks than in introducing drought orders.
	The Minister will know that there has been a significant increase in population in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years. Has he made any assessment of the extra pressure that that has put on demand for water?

Ian Pearson: I am also the Minister for floods, so I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
	On new housing, I assure the hon. Gentleman that new housing development is taken into account by water companies as part of their planning process. Water companies produce 25-year water resource management plans. That process is being put on a statutory basis from the beginning of next month. The public will have an opportunity to comment on those plans, which will be available and transparent, as well as on new housing development. We must ensure not only that we move to zero-carbon homes within 10 years but that we have homes that are far more water efficient. That is one of the key Government objectives for the future.

Rob Marris: Yet again, we have had a series of questions and answers on climate change dealing with only half the equation. We have talked about the causes of climate change but said almost nothing, until this question, about addressing its effects, such as wetter winters and drier summers. I salute my hon. Friend's comments about water leakage and sustainable water supplies. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that more reservoirs are built in southern England to deal with the droughts that have already started and will get considerably worse as the effects of climate change, inevitable as they are, bite upon us?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of adaptation to climate change. Even if we succeed in our objective of avoiding dangerous climate change through gaining international agreement, a certain amount of it is already built into the system and needs to be taken into account for planning purposes. The 25-year water resources plans are designed to encourage water companies to take a long-term view and examine the balance of water supply and demand. We expect them to introduce proposals for new reservoirs when that is appropriate, but we also expect them to take action on leakage and consider other demand reduction options as well as to increase supply. Water companies' current plans include constructing several reservoirs in the future. Those plans will be subject to consultation, and the Government will take a view on them.

Common Agricultural Policy Schemes

David Heathcoat-Amory: What discussions he has had with the European Commission on the disallowance of funds from common agricultural policy schemes.

David Miliband: During my regular meetings with the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, I have discussed the administration of the single payment scheme in England on several occasions. Should the Commission auditors make any proposals for financial corrections, the Government will continue to defend the UK's interests vigorously.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State knows that we pay nearly 2 into the EU budget for every 1 we get back. Why should the general taxpayer face an estimated fine of more than 300 millionthe figure comes from the Governmentto pay for the Department's inefficiencies in administering the single farm payments? Would not it be much better for the taxpayer, farmers and rural areas if incompetence on such a scale were met with ministerial resignations rather than foreign fines?

David Miliband: First, the Government and the preceding Government believed that it was important to ensure that proper accounting was put in place to administer the common agricultural policy. That has benefited this country enormously.
	Secondly, we have rightly made provision in the figures that were published in the spring estimates, but that should not be taken as a sign that we are ready for that level of fine. As I said at the National Farmers Union conference last week, we shall vigorously fight proposals to fine the UK and we will try to minimise any fines. That should command consensus in the House.

Paddy Tipping: In any discussions with the Commission, will the Secretary of State talk about not only penalties but the continued need to transfer payments to provide environmental benefits and create new jobs, new opportunities and new futures for rural communities?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The direction of change in the common agricultural policy is patent, moving away from direct payments so that they are no longer coupled with production. That British agenda is increasingly becoming a European agenda.
	It is right that some of the money is transferred into the second element of the common agricultural policy to support rural development. To make that work, it is vital to remove the blockages that the European Parliament has created and which are absurdly supported by the Opposition. Farmers throughout the country are waiting for their rural payments. It is about time they got them. The Government are doing everything possible to remove the blockage, but Conservative Front Benchers are failing to support us.

Owen Paterson: That was an incredible statement. I have two constituents who are still waiting for payment on 2005. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on that monstrous incompetence, set an absolute deadline by which 2005 payments will be settled and tell us when 2006 payments will be settled?

David Miliband: I totally understand and share the hon. Gentleman's frustration but I wish that he had followed the changes that have been made and the progress that the Rural Payments Agency has achieved in the past nine to 10 months under the new leadership of Mr. Tony Cooper.
	The hon. Gentleman will know from my written statement on 22 February that 200 to 300 cases remain from 2005. Some of themI do not say that it applies to those that he mentionedremain because of probate issues. Those cases from 2005 are, of course, a priority.
	On the 2006 payments, anyone who has not received a full payment for a claim of more than 1,000 is receiving a partial payment, as promised, of more or less 50 per cent. That has gone smoothly. The hon. Gentleman will also know from my statement on 22 February that we are trying to improve on that performance significantly. We are not in the least complacent.

Owen Paterson: When is the deadline for 2005?

David Miliband: I have referred twice to my statement on 22 February. For the most difficult cases, there has always been a system to give them priority in subsequent years, but to work through the details. If the hon. Gentleman has two specific cases that he says are not being tackled properly, I will look into them. I do not know whether he has contacted my office yet but he is more than capable of doing that. I shall ensure that the cases are examined. However, he knows from my statements that any outstanding claim is tackled on a one-to-one basis by a representative of the Rural Payments Agency.

Bill Wiggin: Although we have confidence in the Secretary of State's good intentions, the problem is that while he talks about progress achieved and things having gone smoothly for 2006, even my humble cheque for 73.10 is wrongit has been made out to my address. The Rural Payments Agency must have known that I would raise that issue. If it cannot get my cheque right, what hope is there for the rest of England's farmers? Will the Secretary of State put the matter right?

David Miliband: There we have the face of the modern Tory party: seeking favours for the Tory Front Bench. That is something that we will never do.

Environmental Taxation

David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of environmental taxation.

Ian Pearson: My ministerial colleagues and I have discussed environmental taxation, and a range of other subjects, in various meetings with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury colleagues.

David Ruffley: The Treasury's statement of intent on environmental taxation of 2 July said that it would
	shift the burden of tax from 'goods' to 'bads'.
	According to the Office for National Statistics, however, environmental tax as a share of GDP has fallen under the Chancellor's stewardship from 3.4 per cent. to 2.9 per cent. Does the Minister agree that Brown is not green?

Ian Pearson: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I accept that there is a case for doing more on fiscal measures, but one should remember what the Government have done already, such as the climate change levy, the reform of vehicle excise duty to encourage the take-up of low-polluting cars, the introduction of air passenger duty, differentials in fuel duties and the landfill tax. We are a green Government, but one cannot measure environmental performance solely by the amount of money raised in green taxes. We are trying to change behaviour. We would therefore like to see less money coming from green taxes because we have changed behaviour.

Jim Devine: In recognising that climate change is probably the major challenge faced by this generation, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there is consensus about environmental taxation on both sides of the House?

Ian Pearson: The difference between the Government and the Opposition on environmental taxation is that we have a clear and coherent policy framework. In relation to taxation, regulation, carbon trading and other policy instruments, we have a programme designed to ensure that we avoid dangerous climate change and that we show international leadership. As my hon. Friend knows, the climate change Bill will be an important part of that framework. I am delighted that we will getI hopecross-party support for the climate change Bill, which will be published, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, on Tuesday.

Martin Horwood: The Minister will be aware that Nordic countries raise a greater proportion of their taxation from green taxes than we do. From his answer, however, he is obviously not aware that those countries have managed to change behaviour through fiscal measures and increase revenue from green taxation at the same time. Will he try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if more revenue were to be raised in that way in this country, it would be not a tax grab but offset by reductions in other taxes? That will help to ensure public support for green taxation and defend us against the opponents of green taxation on the Conservative Benches.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that environmental taxation can help to change behaviour, and it is doing exactly that in the United Kingdom. He is also right to identify the need to offset environmental taxation and to spend the revenue raised from it on environmental goods, and we are doing just that.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the climate change levy directly offsets taxation of goods with taxation of bads, recycling it through reduced national insurance contributions and enhanced capital allowances. That is a clear example of our use of environmental taxation in a neutral way to encourage and improve business performance.

Bob Blizzard: Environmental taxation is obviously an important instrument, but, faced with these taxes, how can we ensure that it is not just poor people and ordinary working people who modify their behaviour while very rich people carry on polluting the planet regardless?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to observe that there is a social justice argument when it comes to tackling climate change. It is important for us all to do our bit. Businesses must take action to reduce their carbon dioxide emissionsand a great deal of work is being done in that regardwhile individuals at all income levels must take action to reduce their carbon footprints.
	As my hon. Friend knows, there is a relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and household income, and it is true that some of the wealthiest households are responsible for the highest emissions. They too must take action, as must we all if we are to have energy-efficient homes that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help the climate.

Business of the House

Shailesh Vara: Would the Deputy Leader of the House kindly inform the House of the forthcoming business?

Nigel Griffiths: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 12 MarchEstimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on National Health Service deficits, followed by a debate on local transport planning and funding. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	Tuesday 13 MarchProceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
	Wednesday 14 MarchA debate on Trident on a Government motion.
	Thursday 15 MarchA debate on widening participation in higher education on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 16 MarchThe House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 March will be as follows:
	Monday 19 MarchSecond Reading of the Consumer, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 20 MarchA debate on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 21 MarchMy right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 22 MarchContinuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 23 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	I should also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 and 22 March will be:
	Thursday 15 MarchA debate on the report from the Treasury Committee on the administration of tax credits.
	Thursday 22 MarchA debate on the report from the International Development Committee on conflict and development: peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction.
	 The information is as follows:
	 Health: in so far as they relate to national health service deficits (First Report from the Health Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 73-I, on National Health Service Deficits, and the Government response thereto, Cm 7028; and the Department of Health Departmental Report 2006, Cm 6814).
	 Transport: in so far as they relate to local transport planning and funding (Twelfth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2005-06, on Local Transport Planning and Funding, HC 1120, and the Government's response thereto, Fourth Special Report, Session 2006-07, HC 334).
	The House of Commons expressed a clear view last night. It was indeed an historic moment for the House, but we must of course respect the right of the other House both to debate and to vote on reform next week. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last night that he believed that a cross-party working group should reconvene in the near future, and expressed a willingness to talk to minority parties. Once we have taken stock of the decisions of both this House and the other place, my right hon. Friend will come to the House to make a detailed statement on the way forward, following reflection.
	Finally, let me welcome the shadow Deputy Leader of the House to our proceedings.

Shailesh Vara: My thanks to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I understand that the Leader of the House is unable to be with us today because he is on an awayday with the rest of the Cabinet. The idea of the Prime Minister, along with the Chancellor and the rest of the Cabinet engaging in team-building exercises is somewhat breathtaking. Perhaps on their return the Prime Minister could give us a statement as to who were the team playersor perhaps more importantly, who was not.
	As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, last night was a truly historic occasion. I welcome his preliminary comments. However, there are some detailed issues that need to be addressed. This House voted for a substantially or wholly elected upper Chamber, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, said afterwards, it is only a first step and raises further questions. Indeed, two options were approved, there was obvious tactical voting by some hon. Members and there were reports of Government Whips encouraging Members to vote for a wholly elected Chamber in order to wreck the reform. Will the hon. Gentleman make a statement on how the Government interpret what is the settled view of the House?

Fiona Mactaggart: He just has.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that he just has. If she were listening carefully, she would have noted that there were warm words but nothing specific. I am asking for specific responses.
	Last night, the Leader of the House gave us his immediate thoughts on the next steps and I am grateful for that, but the next steps for reform of the other place will be complex, controversial and undoubtedly will take time. Will the Leader of the House come to this place and set out a clear timetable for the next steps? Is the expectation of the Government to fulfil their manifesto pledge and to legislate in this Parliament? Now that the Chancellor has finally expressed his views, will he confirm that the Chancellor will drive forward these reforms?
	Last night, this House clearly voted against the 50:50 proposal put forward by the Leader of the House and as such the House rejected the White Paper. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the White Paper is now scrapped? Will there, following the cross-party talks that he referred to, be a statement from the Leader of the House saying that there will be a new White Paper based on the votes of last night? When any legislation is put forward, will he undertake that all stages of the legislative process will take place on the Floor of this House, and not in Committee?
	As I said, last night was a momentous occasion but, given the complexity and controversy inherent in this constitutional reform, we must do all we can, working together, to ensure that reform does indeed go ahead. I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would enlighten us with his thoughts.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member. I realise that he has a difficult job to do. He has to reconcile the very diverse opinions on his side after the late conversion to the cause of reforming the House of Lords, and he has to overcome the difficulty of this being, in the words of his leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), a third-term priority. For us, it is a priority. Having sat through most of the 40 plus speeches that we had on the issue, it is clear that the overwhelming will of the House of Commons is for change in the upper Chamber. That is what was decisively voted on last night. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given us an undertaking that this subject will be considered again by, I hope, the cross-party working group on House of Lords reform, which sat eight times to deliberate on the matter in the lead-up to the White Paper. The time for White Papers is, I believe, over. Indeed, after 98 years considering the issue, the time for talking is over. Now it is time for us to take action. We await the House of Lords' consideration of the issue next week. Then will be the time when we decide the way forward to achieve what are clearly the wishes of the vast majority of Members of this House from both sides, as well as, of course, the wishes of the people of the country.

Helen Goodman: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has just announced that he will be publishing a climate change Bill next Tuesday. This will be a ground-breaking piece of legislation, and it will have a period of pre-legislative scrutiny, which means that Second Reading is some way off. Will it be possible for a statement to be made in the House on publication so that Back Benchers will have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State?

Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just sat down after answering questions on this matter. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend is giving to the statement that will be made next week. It will undoubtedly be the subject of debate in this House. I hope that it will also be the subject of consensus among hon. Members from all parties. Climate change is an issue that is exercising everyone. It is time that even more action was taken; drastic action is necessary. I am sure that a vision will be set out next week to which mostI hope allhon. Members can subscribe. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the subject of proper consideration and debate by the House.

David Heath: After last night's votes, I can fully understand why the Leader of the House wants time away to think. To mark what was clearly an historic vote, whatever its consequences in this placeI hope that there is not now a queue of noble Lords asking for a refundthere is a need for a statement, as the Deputy Leader of the House suggested, from his right hon. Friend after the Lords have had their debate and vote. Such a statement will need to set out the Government's intentions, but must not hide behind the normal conventions regarding the Queen's Speech. We want now not a White Paper but legislation to be put before this House in the next Session of Parliament so that we can resolve this matter once and for all.
	To show that I believe that some good work does happen in the other place, may I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will find time properly to debate two private Member's Bills that emanate from the Lords? The first is the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill in the name of Lord Dubs, which builds on the intergovernmental conference on cluster munitions and the Oslo declaration. Many of us feel that it is time that cluster munitions were banned. The Bill will provide the opportunity to do so.
	The other Bill is the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill, in the name of my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) yesterday. Those excellent measures should be given proper time for debate in this House.
	May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of the medical training application service? It is in complete disarray. Many junior doctors find it impossible to make proper applications for the jobs that they should be pursuing in order to further their careers. The Secretary of State has said in a statement that the service is to be reviewed, but the appointment process is continuing. Can she be brought to the House to explain why she is not suspending the process until such time as proper arrangements can be made before irreparable damage is done to the careers of many young doctors and some of them are lost to the country?
	A lot of play was made in the debates of the past two days about the importance that the House attaches to its right to vote on Supply. Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why on Monday we will have an estimates day, but we will not consider the estimates that are put before us? We will not have a debate on those estimates. We will not have any real opportunity to amend them, and many of us would like to have the opportunity, for instance, to look at the supplementary estimate of 587,000 extra to go to the Deputy Prime Minister's office for functions that, frankly, elude most of us in this House.

Nigel Griffiths: The Ministry of Defence obviously keeps the effectiveness of, and the consequences of the use of, munitions under constant review and acts accordingly. The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned at Prime Minister's questions yesterday was supported then by the Prime Minister, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he was there. I am sure that it will also be incorporated in today's discussions on the important issue of equality that will be before us later. Health questions are on Tuesday, so the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to put his points directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health then. However, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that his proposal to suspend the application process is absolutely cuckoo. Many dozensindeed, hundredsof young doctors are going through that process, so to suspend it without replacing it would be absolute folly. My right hon. Friend is revising the procedures to take on board the criticisms that have been made, and the British Medical Association and other organisations are very much part of that process.
	The Liaison Committee of this House can examine the estimates issue, as can its other Committees; it is less a Government matter than a Committee one. On the Lords, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, who had problems with some of his Back Benchers concerning the definition of predominance, is on very weak ground. It is not the Government whom he must persuade to have this issue debated here; he will have to go 300 yd away to the other House and persuade some of his noble Friends, such as his former leader, Lord Steel, who said that the minute that there was an elected second Chamber, it would destroy the relationship between the two Houses. Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to what his former leader is saying, and how will he persuade him to take a constructive part in endorsing the present Liberal Democrat policyfor as long as that lasts?

Lyn Brown: May I be greedy and request that, after last night's historic moment, we have another champagne moment? May we consider, on international women's day, introducing gender-neutral language into all future legislation in this House?

Nigel Griffiths: I am a strong supporter of that, which I understand has been achieved by the Scottish Parliament and, I think, the Welsh Assembly. Ministers are endeavouring to ensure that gender-neutral language is used where possible. I can see no cases where it cannot be used, so I will ensure that they are aware of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this issue; I think that she speaks for many in this place.

Anne Main: In 2004, the Secretary of State for Health announced an annual 40 million to go towards the treatment of incarcerated drug offenders, yet recent meetings seem to suggest that only half the prison estate is being covered. It certainly will not be covered by 2008 if the funding carries on at the same rate. Can the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on where we are in rolling out the programme to ensure that we get the integrated drug treatment that we agreed on?

Nigel Griffiths: I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Lady's concerns. He will be grateful that there is support and encouragement in all parts of the House for tackling some of these tricky issues, and I am sure that doing so is already on his list. Although I cannot promise a debate on the Floor of the House, there are many opportunities for the hon. Lady to raise this issue, have it debated and have a Minister respond.

Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend consider setting aside time for a discussion on the capping of the police precept in Wales? Police budgets in Wales have gone up by 33 per cent. over the past 10 years and include a 273 per cent. increase in the police precept in north Wales. Those increases would be understandable if the funding was going to frontline services, but the North Wales police authority is spending 300,000 on police horses and 3.5 million on refurbishing and redecorating its headquarters. Other expenses include baseball caps for police officers, electric bikes so that police constables do not have to pedal and blogs and websites. Yesterday, the Tories and the other opposition parties in Wales decided to vote against capping the North Wales police authority. Does that decision run contrary to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a lot for the Deputy Leader of the House to answer.

Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, the spending of local police budgets is a matter for the chief constable in conjunction with the accountable police authorities andI would hopein consultation with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. I note that my hon. Friend has highlighted a few anomalies and doubtless he will want to press the chief constable for an explanation of each of those spending categories and priorities.

Bernard Jenkin: May I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) about how last night's result should be interpreted? Has the Deputy Leader done an analysis of the voting figures to determine how many right hon. and hon. Members voted for an appointed House or even for a unicameral Parliament and then subsequently voted for a 100 per cent. elected upper Chamber? Does not that suggest that a number of Members voted for a 100 per cent. election simply to embarrass the Government and frustrate their policy? Those Members voted for what amounts to not a revising Chamber, but a rogue Chamber, about which the Government's White Paper says hardly anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions in this session should be brief.

Nigel Griffiths: They should also ask for a debate, and I am not sure that the last question did so. We seem to be having the debate now. Let me be frank with the hon. Gentleman and say that I do not think that there was any inconsistency. Some hon. Members are unicameralists and wanted to abolish the House of Lords. That was the first vote. After that vote was disposed of and they did not get their first choice, they then firmly believed that the House of Lords should be fully elected. Other hon. Members will have gone through similar thought processes in the votes. Some decided to vote, as I did myself, for each of the elected options as they came up, although some votes were not called. That is the honest explanation. The end result was that the vast majority of the House who voted did so for at least the 80 per cent. option and even more voted for the 100 per cent. option. Each individual Member of Parliament must of course explain that to his or her constituents.

David Winnick: I voted for up to 80 per cent. last night, and that had a large majority in favour. If there is to be a statement next week to tell us that talks and negotiations are continuing or will take place arising from those historic decisions, would it not be useful to making progressbearing in mind one of the important votes last night in which there was a clear majorityfor a brief Bill to be introduced to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 and remove the remaining 92 hereditaries who sit in the Lords solely because they are hereditaries? Would it not be useful to make progress in that direction as quickly as possible?

Nigel Griffiths: After 98 years, I am reluctant to advise my hon. Friend that we could bring in a fast Bill, and act in haste and repent at leisure. I apologise if my hon. Friend has inadvertently misinterpreted what I said about a statement. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not intend to make a statement next week, but to wait for the House of Lords to deliberate on the decisions of this House, to reflect on them and then make a statement on the way forward. My hon. Friend and everyone else will then have a chance to question him and make their point of view clear.

Simon Burns: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House about a point of procedure? If and when legislation is introduced to deal with the other place, will it be exempt from the programming regime because it is a constitutional matter? Secondly, to pick up a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), which the Deputy Leader of the House did not answer, will it also have all its stages taken on the Floor of the House, including the Committee stage?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to stop this here. These questions should be about the business for next week. This is more like proceedings on a statement on the reform of the other place. The Deputy Leader of the House has already said that a statement on that will come, and that is when such questions may be put. Unless questions are on the business for next week, I shall stop them dead.

George Young: Will the Prime Minister come to the House next Wednesday and, in the light of the decisive vote for reform last night, tell us that he respects the wishes of the House and will make no more political appointments?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not on.

Andrew MacKay: Following the clear success of the huge number of Downing street online petitions, will the Deputy Leader of the House persuade a Cabinet Office Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week to make a statement giving us a categorical assurance that all the data and information will not be passed on to the Labour party for electoral advantage, which would be in breach of the data protection legislation?

Nigel Griffiths: It is usual for any political party to target supporters with mailings. I gather that among the petitions he mentions there were not too many people supporting the Government's position on matters, so I would caution my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office against coming to the House and explaining how it might be useful to spend money targeting those people. On a more serious point, all the information is of course covered by data protection legislation, but I think that the House welcomes the use of petition proceduresas has also happened in devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is considering recommendations for how the House may more effectively use the petitions procedure, as happens in the Scottish Parliament.

Gwyn Prosser: What progress may we expect on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill in the next week or weeks? Tuesday was the 20th anniversary of the sinking of the channel ferry the Herald of Free Enterprise, which claimed 193 lives and was the worst peacetime maritime disaster since the loss of the Titanic. It resulted in PO European Ferries being charged with, but not convicted of, corporate manslaughter.
	The emergency services were heroic on that night, but the support provided by the ship's crew has never been fully acknowledged. Will my hon. Friend make every effort to progress the Bill, but will he also join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the crew on that terrible night in 1987 and to the Dover counselling service, which to this day is still dealing with the aftermath of that awful night?

Nigel Griffiths: I certainly do pay tribute to those heroic people and their efforts. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend for being a tireless champion of that cause. As he knows, ministerial colleagues have introduced a Bill to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, never again can those at the top of a company avoid the responsibility for their actions, whether for reasons of cost-cutting or not. I make no reference to previous cases that have resulted in the deaths of people. There must be some level of personal responsibility at the top of the company and the Government are determined to ensure that we have a practical Bill that will bring that about.

Pete Wishart: What progress has been made towards having a debate on the Act of Union? The Leader of the House has said that he wants to have that debate. The other place is able to debate the Act of Union, so why cannot we have a debate in here?

Nigel Griffiths: There is a terrific debate going on about that in Scotland at the moment, in the lead-up to the elections there

Pete Wishart: We are winning it.

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that his party is winning that debate, but he deludes himself. As far as I know, his party has not managed to persuade the people of Scotland of the value of what some comparable smaller states have achievedthat is, value added tax at 25 per cent., an income tax rate of 50p and a pint of beer costing 8. However, I wish him all the best in his attempts to spread that message to as many people as possible. If he does not do that, I certainly will.

Denis MacShane: May we have a statement from the Attorney-General next week about the remarkable headline on the front page of this morning's  Daily Mail? It finds a Member of the other place guilty of charges in connection with a current inquiry. Every time there is a leak from the inquiry, MPs of the Liberal Democrat and Scottish Nationalist parties release highly prejudicial statements, so how on earth can a judge for the case be foundlet alone jurorswho will not have had his mind made up by the press and politicians?

Nigel Griffiths: The judiciary takes very seriously issues of prejudicial comment and contempt of court. I am sure that editors will be aware of that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for issuing that reminder, but it is very much a matter for the courts and the judiciary, and not for the Government at this stage.

Edward Garnier: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether we can have a statement shortly from a Treasury Minister about that Department's policy in respect of answering written parliamentary questions? Last week, I tabled a question for answer today about the Treasury's estimate of the public cost of meeting the ombudsman's judgment on the failure of occupational pension schemes. I was told that it was a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Treasury. However, I put the question to the Treasury on purpose, as I want it to answer, not another Department. Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why I cannot have an answer from the Department to which I directed the question?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. and learned Member should seek an explanation from the Table Office. Its staff are highly qualified and give advice about which Departments are responsible for answering questions. It is not uncommon for Members of Parliament to fail to seek that advice, or to ignore it, and as a result put a question to the wrong Department

Edward Garnier: indicated dissent.

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been given very clear advice. If he wants his question addressed by the relevant Department, he should follow that advice. I am sure that staff in that Department will respond to the best of their ability.

David Hamilton: Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why a request from the Defence Committee for an extension to Wednesday's debate on Trident was not granted? Is it too late to extend the debate from 7 pm to 10 pm, as that would give more Back Benchers a chance to contribute? We have just had two days of debate on a subject that is not of great importance to people outside the House, and it therefore seems wrong to devote only one day to the Trident debate.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, as I think that such a major constitutional change merited two days of debate. There are tremendous pressures on the House's time, but I believe that there will be adequate time on Wednesday for as many Members as possible to express their views. Moreover, all Members of the House will have an opportunity to vote on the matter. The debate will be the first of its kind to be held in advance of a decision on such an issue, and it shows the Government's commitment to making sure that that decision is subject to the fullest and frankest discussion. In the spirit of my hon. Friend's question, I accept that the matter is one of the most serious currently facing the House.

Roger Williams: Two years after it was commissioned, the report on the terms and conditions of service of Gurkhas in the British Army has been released. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), today issued a written statement to the effect that Gurkhas who left the service after 1 July 1997 would get the same pensions as those offered to other Army personnel. However, those Gurkhas who left before that date still live in poverty in Nepal, and often depend on charity for survival. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell the Minister that it was entirely inadequate to announce that important change in a written statement, and that he should come to the House to make an oral statement so that hon. Members can question him about it?

Nigel Griffiths: I think that the whole House welcomes the action being taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to ensure justice for serving Gurkhas, but applying the change retrospectively would be a completely different matter. I am sure that hon. Members will have opportunities to raise the issue, if not on the Floor of the House, then in Westminster Hall and in Adjournment debates. They will be able to put the case about which the hon. Member feels so strongly, and to secure an explanation from a Minister in the Ministry of Defence of exactly what is being done, and why. I hope that such an explanation will wipe the slate clean.

Paul Flynn: When can we discuss the report published today about the abject failure of drug policy in Britain since 1971, when harsh prohibition was first introduced? At that time, there were fewer than 1,000 addicts in this country, and virtually no drug crimes or deaths. Now, however, 36 years later, we have 280,000 addicts and the worst levels of drug crimes and deaths in our continent. Should we not turn away from the years in which we pursued policies based on the criminal justice system? They were popular and appeared to be tough, but they failed. Should we not adopt the bold policies based on health solutions that have succeeded in other countries?

Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen and concerned interest in this matter throughout his time in the House, but he will accept that there are no easy or proven solutions from other countries for tackling the problem.

Evan Harris: There are.

Nigel Griffiths: I hear what the hon. Member says from a sedentary position. Of course, legalising drug use means that no crime is committed, but this Government do not intend to introduce any such measures. Action has been taken, and the Government's drug strategy has been successful in cutting the use of non-class A illegal drugs. The amount of crime related to those drugs is also down. Part of the explosion in drugs use, as I think that my hon. Friend for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) will acknowledge, is due to affluence and people's ability to buy illegal drugs, and to the fall in their price. A number of my constituents have suffered tragedies, and I am sure that all hon. Members could say the same. I know that there is an overwhelming resistance outside the House to any softer line on drugs. The Government must reach an informed judgment, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the Ministers responsible for drugs policy.

Jeremy Hunt: Last night, this House voted decisively for reform of the upper House. The Deputy Leader of the House has made clear his views as to what business is appropriate for next week, but does he agree that we should have a debate on reform of this House as well, given its woeful failure to hold the Executive to account? Would not our deliberations on reforming the other place have much greater credibility if we were prepared not just to think about removing the speck from our neighbour's eyes, but about removing the beam from our own?

Nigel Griffiths: No, I do not.

Martin Salter: After the unseemly manoeuvring we witnessed last Friday over two popular and well supported private Members' Bills, in particular the Temporary and Agency Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Bill, is there any prospect of either the Deputy Leader of the House or the Leader of the House introducing a saner and more rational method of debating and deciding on the worth of private Members' Bills?

Nigel Griffiths: The House has considered, and indeed reviewed, how private Members' Bills should be dealt with during my time in Parliament. The issue is kept under review by Back-Bench colleagues on the appropriate Committees. If the Modernisation or Procedure Committees make proposals, I hope they will be available for debate and deliberation. We all support improvements, but when the matter was last considered suggestions about changing the day and times would have brought consequential changes that would not, I believe, command the support of the House. However, the process is not set in aspic and is worthy of consideration at any appropriate stage.

Evan Harris: I notice that no statement on immigration policy was announced in next week's business, but if there is one in the future, will the Deputy Leader of the House reflect on the sort of language used by the Home Secretary, when he talked about foreigners coming to this country and stealing services such as the NHS? Will the hon. Gentleman explain how someone who is unconscious or has HIV can steal treatment from the NHS? Given the Labour party's previously proud history of promoting race relations, is he surprised that Members on the Government Benches, as well as on the Opposition Benches, express concern about language from a Home Secretary that can do nothing to improve race relations?

Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is forthright in his language at all times. Quite frankly, anyone entering this country illegallyand there is no reason why anyone shouldwho then uses services to which they have not contributed and to which they have no entitlement, deserves no comfort from the House or from the hon. Gentleman. The advice that he and his party should give is that people should come to Britain only legally; they should not cross other countries to come to Britain, make legally unfounded claims and take resources that should go to other people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to defend pushing his constituents to the end of a queue because treatment is being given to someone who has entered the country illegally, he can do so. I will not; nor will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Keith Vaz: Next week, may we have an urgent statement from a Health Minister about waiting times for patients needing operations in Leicestershire? My constituent, Mark Golding, has been waiting four months for a hernia operation and is in absolute agony. His surgeon and his GP suggested that he write to me to get the matter brought before the House, so may we have a debate on the subject? I realise that the Government have put a huge amount of money into the local health service, but examples such as I described are very depressing indeed.

Nigel Griffiths: I welcome my right hon. Friend's warm words about the huge steps that have been taken to cut waiting lists by 383,000 to record lows, which stops people waiting between 18 months and a year for operations. I hope that he will have the chance to put his question to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at Health questions on Tuesday, to draw her attention to the matter and to explain why he believes that category should be the Government's next priority.

Julian Lewis: Can the Deputy Leader of the House give us an assurance that the wording of the motion on Trident next Wednesday will not be watered down from a clear commitment to continuing to possess, after Trident, a nuclear deterrent based on submarines and Trident missile systems? As the Government are apparently worried about a revolt on their Back Benches, such a watering down of the terminology of the motion would, first, be ineffective in heading off such a revolt and, secondly, be unnecessary given the solid support for the White Paper that they can expect from those on the Conservative Benches?

Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on actually tabling a motion at all. That certainly did not happen under the Conservative Government whom he supported. A motion will be tabled this week and I am sure that it will be clear and that it will allow people to vote accordingly.

Mark Lazarowicz: In a spirit of cross-party unity, may I express my complete agreement with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in his request for a debate on the Act of Union? It would be an excellent idea to hold such a debate next week, or at least before 3 May, to allow us to focus on the consequences to Scottish jobs of setting up barriers between Scotland and its main market. It would be pointless to set up a Scottish central bank that had no control over the currency. There will be consequences to England and Scotland from tearing up an economic union that has served both countries well for 300 years.

Nigel Griffiths: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Such a debate would be welcome, and I am sorry that it is not in next week's programme. The debate would of course be held in a spirit of persuasion, not in the spirit of bullying Scottish businesses as the leader of the Scottish National party is alleged to have done by Sir David Murray. It is important that there is debate, and even though there may not be detailed debate in the House, it is certainly taking place in Scotland.

Patrick Mercer: The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that unarmoured, so-called soft-skin vehicles are no longer being used on patrolling duties in southern Iraq, yet on the front page of the  Hull Daily Mail on Monday the 1st Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment was pictured using just such a vehicle. May I ask that the Secretary of State for Defence comes to the House this week to explain why our soldiers are being exposed to that sort of danger, and whether there will be a quick resolution about armoured vehicles in those theatres?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should have had a chance to ask an urgent question on that matterI do not know whether he did so and it was rejected. There is no time for such a statement in the House this week, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the issue and ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a response to the legitimate concern that he has raised. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the report, but doubtless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to give the hon. Gentleman an answer.

David Drew: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the excellent Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill, introduced by Lord Dubs. I hope it finds it way to this place.
	While we are still in the throes of radical reform, can we look at the last great anachronism of Parliamentthe Lobby? Is not it about time that we put a searchlight on how the Lobby works? We should call for greater transparency, end unattributable briefings and make sure that Parliament is properly reported. Is not that something the Government could bring forward either in a debate or a White Paper?

Nigel Griffiths: Obviously, various institutions in the House have undergone reform and the Lobby is no longer subject to the contempt proceedings that would bring its members on bended knee before the House to apologise for inaccurate or misleading reports. Doubtless, the Lobby will have heard my hon. Friend's words, so I am sorry to disappoint him by saying that the Government have no plans to investigate the matter. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for the Government to do soit would be very much a House matter.

Peter Bone: TV Licensing has just announced a change in policy, and is now saying that anyone who says that they do not have a television set will be inspected. That means that a Government inspector will knock on the door, demand to go in and look in every room to see whether there is a television set in it. Can we have a statement next week on this change of Government policy?

Nigel Griffiths: I cannot promise the hon. Member a statement, but the vast majority of people are very honest about stumping up for their television licences. I am very pleased that the over-75s now get free television licencesa great achievement by the Government. Those who do pay expect everyone else to pay. As long as there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is evading paying for a TV licence, I certainly see no problem with people being checked to establish whether they have a television. I do not think that a burden should fall on honest people because of the actions of dishonest people.

Jim Devine: I wonder whether time can be set aside in next week's Government business to discuss the state of Scottish politics in the light of a report on the front page of this morning's  Daily Record, in which a major political party is described as lacking strategy, lacking initiative and lacking direction. It further argues that the chair of the party should be removed immediately. Apparently, the report was written by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and it made reference to his Conservative MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.

Nigel Griffiths: I have seen the report by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and I read it with some interest. He did say that there was
	a simple lack of thinkers
	on the Tory Benches at Holyrood. I think that he is being far too generous and that the lack of thinking stems from here, just as the lack of policy comes from here. It is wrong to blame colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their weak and ineffective opposition up there. I know that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is on his way to Scotland. Doubtless he will leave the airport tomorrow morning, pull up at headquarters and, in the immortal words of Winston Churchill, an empty taxi will draw up and Mr. Cameron will get out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should refer to hon. Members by their proper titles.

Michael Penning: May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the debacle under which so many of our constituents have had their bodies contaminated by tainted blood products? When the Secretary of State for Health comes to debate the issue or perhaps to give the House a statement, can we have the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) present, as she was the Minister with responsibility for public health at the time? Perhaps she could advise the House whether she sought clarification from the permanent secretary about whether there was a conflict of interest by virtue of the fact that her husband was working for one of the companies implicated in the scandal?

Nigel Griffiths: I reject such slurs against my right hon. Friend. I do not need to remind the House that the problem originated under a previous Government, not the present Government, and it is yet another rather tragic mess that we were left to sort out. I would have hoped for some humility on the part of the hon. Member and his colleagues over the role played by the previous Government and that we might reach a cross-party consensus on how to sort out the problem rather than cast aspersions against individuals that have absolutely no foundation in fact and are merely designed to smear someone. I deprecate such behaviour.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate next week on brain tumours, given that they account for 2 per cent. of all cancers, but receive a disproportionately small share of research funding? They are the biggest single disease killing children and, sadly, survival rates have not risen in line with those for childhood leukaemia or a significant number of other cancers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we urgently need a debate about how to tackle this scourge, which has caused far too much suffering to far too many people for far too long?

Nigel Griffiths: I respect the hon. Member far too much to make a political point about this and he has quite rightly paid tribute to success in other areas of cancer treatment. I cannot promise a debate, but I hope that he has a chance to raise the matter at Health questions on Tuesday. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the issue and provides a response to a question that concerns many people.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate next week on how the Government respond to public petitions? Last July, I presented to the House a petition signed by 15,000 of my constituents who were concerned about the future of hospital services in Banbury. This week, the Clerk of Public Petitions informs me that the Government intend to make absolutely no observations whatever on that petition. Does not the Deputy Leader of the House think it disgraceful that Ministers in the Department of Health cannot even bestir themselves to draft a two-paragraph response to a petition signed by some 15,000 of my constituents? In this instance, does not the fact of silence indicate contempt?

Nigel Griffiths: No, it does not. The procedure for dealing with petitions is no different under this Government as under previous Governments, but I do not say that as an excuse. The Procedure Committee examined the matter and I think that there is a strong case for looking at it again. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already said, in the light of the use of petitions by No. 10 and the Prime Minister, how they may be more effectively vetted and considered by the House so that a response can be given. The hon. Member, who is a very experienced Member and a former Minister, will realise that a massive volume of petitions come before the House. That is not to devalue any of them, but there must be a way of prioritising them. The Procedure Committee may find a means of allowing us better to consider them in a way that neither swamps us nor gives any feeling of a dismissive response. I think that petitions could be handled better and I hope that we can find a way of doing so in the near future.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, the Deputy Leader of the House was unhappy with my asking questions about the previous role of a Minister in connection with the tainted blood debacle. I seek your advice. When Back Benchers write to Ministers and get no reply whatever and the question is passed on to other Departments, what alternative do we have other than raising the matter on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put questions on the Floor of the House and it is my duty to see that that happens on a regular basis.

Women, Justice and Gender Equality

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Vera Baird: I am very proud to be here today with colleagues, male and female, from all parties to open the debate on women, justice and gender equality in the United Kingdom and to celebrate international women's day 2007. The first international women's day was observed in 1909 in the United States: it is nearly 100 years old, so we must have a big do in a couple of years' time. I cannot find any trace in the modern era of international women's day debates in this, the mother of Parliaments, until 1997, but now we have them. On this day, women all over the world reflect on the role that they play in the world, and they come togetheractually, virtually or simply in spiritto rediscover their aspirations. From Alaska to Zanzibar and from Rotaruha to Redcar, women celebrate a sort of female new year's day, the resolution being that they will work together again for another year with yet more energy and in solidarity towards an equal future.
	I welcome our male colleagues from all parties. I mentioned this event to a male this morning and I told him that I expected some men to be here. He said over breakfast that that was surprising and I told him that it seemed likely to me that, by 2020, women would rule the world. He said to me, What, still? I told him that the only difference that I could see between hima manand a battery was that batteries usually have a positive side. Those are, of course, reversible jokes and so they are gender neutral.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Vera Baird: On that point?  [ Laughter. ] I will.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister believe that it is time for a lady to be Deputy Prime Minister of, perhaps not the world, but certainly the United Kingdom?

John Bercow: A woman.

Mark Pritchard: Yes, a woman.

Vera Baird: A lady? I support gender-balanced leadership.
	Gender equality should have a good year in the UK in 2007. In October, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will come on stream. Historically, a lot of our effort in Britain in trying to make things fairer has been geared towards stopping discrimination. We saw, and wanted to stop, race discrimination, gender discrimination and disability discrimination. Later, we realised that age, sexual orientation and religion could make people equally vulnerable to being victimised. Soon, the disadvantages faced by other groups, such as carers, may present those people as in need of fair protection. However, it is difficult to change a whole culture to a culture of equalities with tools that are intended for blocking piecemeal acts of discrimination. Court cases require the coincidence of a person who is wronged also being a person who has the stamina and perhaps the cash to see a case through. The result may be an arcane precedent of which not a lot of shop-floor people see the relevance. More recently, we have moved the law towards promoting equality. Promoting equality will be a major task for the new commission.

Keith Vaz: Does my hon. and learned Friendthe Minister for Women and Equality is sitting on her left on the Front Benchshare my concern about the appointments that have been made so far to the new commission? There appears to be no ethnic minority woman sitting on that commission, apart from the transition commissioner, who is currently the acting head of the Commission for Racial Equality. There are four more vacancies. Does she hope, as I do, that some of the people who fill those vacancies will be ethnic minority women?

Vera Baird: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. There is another round of recruitment going on at the moment and I hope that we can do as he suggests.
	The new commission is buttressed by the introduction of positive duties on public authorities to promotecurrentlygender, race and disability rights. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we helped to get the human rights element put into the commission. The human rights approach deepens the concept of equality to that of equal respect for the dignity of any individual, whoever they are, by setting minimum standards to which all individuals are entitled. The discrimination law review, led by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is looking at simplification and modernisation of the whole of discrimination law. We intend to consult shortly, ahead of a single equality Bill.
	We need these measures. Women need these measures. We have made great progress, but our gains are partial and slow-growing. Let us take Parliament: there have been 100 women MPs for 10 years now, the total having shot up thanks to the decisions Labour took about all-women shortlists in the 1990s. However, at the current rate of progress, it will not be my daughter, or my granddaughter, or my great-granddaughter, but my great-great-great-great-granddaughterat the earliestwho may see a House of Commons with equal numbers of men and women. That is to say, in royal succession terms, it will happen during the reign not of the Queenor Helen MirrenPrince Charles, or Prince William, but of Prince William's children's children, who will presumably be called something like George IX, Charles VI, or William VII and who might see that equality in their Parliaments. At about the same time, at current rates of progress, there will be equal pay for women.

Julie Kirkbride: The hon. and learned Lady will be aware that, last night, the Commons voted for an elected House of Lords. Would she like her Government to ensure that 50 per cent. of those elected are women?

Vera Baird: In terms of advancing women, we have a lot to tell the Tories, and they have not got a lot to tell us. We are going to think these proposals through carefully and I know that they are going to be helpful.

Madeleine Moon: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the only democracy in the world that has 50 per cent. representation of women is the Welsh Assembly. We led the way in the Welsh Assembly to have a 50:50 House. Is that not the future that we should all be working towards?

Vera Baird: I could not agree more. I am grateful for that intervention.

Joan Ruddock: I want to stress the point that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) has illustrated, a new legislature offers the opportunity to come forward with a process of selectingas opposed to electingcandidates on a gender-balanced basis. All women in the House should press for that in the reform of the upper House.

John Bercow: rose

Vera Baird: I give way.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the Minister might not want to reply at length to the intervention, but it is customary to say a little something, for the simple reason that, otherwise, technically we have an intervention on an intervention. It is nice to have something in between.

Vera Baird: Let me offer my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) the titbit that I agree with her 100 per cent. I must curb my over-politeness.

John Bercow: I hope that the hon. and learned Lady understands why I hesitated momentarily just now.
	The 10-year strategy entitled Choice for parents, which addresses the important subject of child care, had pledged, in a sense, a renewed focus on the availability of child care. In that context, are Ministers at the hon. and learned Lady's Department talking to Ministers in other Departments about the rigidities of the planning process? One of the consequences of those rigidities is that there is often an insufficient supply at local level. That is damaging. The nimbys win and the interests of mothers and children lose. That has to change.

Vera Baird: It seems inevitable that consideration for child care must be built in. There is a planning White Paper to come out soon. It does not directly concern my Department, but, in principle, I am 100 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman.

Angela Watkinson: In relation to the intervention that the Minister responded to about gender balance in the political field, will she undertake to discuss with Stockholm city council how it achieved its 50 per cent. gender balance without any discriminatory means at all? The status of women in Sweden is equal to that of men in the field of employment and in all other areas of society.

Vera Baird: I am glad that the Tory party visits Stockholm whenever it thinks that it needs to learnand it does need to learn. We have done what we have done and we will carry on ensuring that women grow in their power and influence.
	I am pleased that, under the gender equality duty, public bodies will address the causes of the gender pay gap. That is part of what they have to do. It is right that they should take proactive steps in their roles as employers and service providers positively to promote equality of opportunity, rather than just taking steps to prevent discrimination. When Trevor Phillips launched Fairness and Freedom, the equalities review, the headlines were that, notwithstanding the biggest package of rights ever for working motherslet us imagine what it was like in the Tory days, when there was not any of thatwith extended and better-paid maternity leave, new paternity rights, the right to request flexible working to help parents balance their family responsibilities with work, child care provision and child care support, the most discriminated against people in the workplace were still working mothers. That was not a surprise to any of us.
	We are about to do a women and work commission one-year-on programme for progress. Privately, it seems to me that all jobs should be available on a part-time basis unless it is impossible. The low status of part-time work, which many mothers in my constituency will choose to do for some part of their lives, will always result in discrimination while it is seen as a subsidiary way of working. It is seen as an employment B road travelled by peoplewe call them womenwho are deemed to have no ambition, no interest in a career, and few training needs. The common view is that their pay need only be low, as it is a second wage to top up the earnings of the standard two-child family, to take them from Asda clothes and pale ale to Benetton and Beaujolais. Part-time work is viewed not as necessary, but as extra. That treatment of, and attitude towards, part-timers is still firmly in place in work situations, and it alone almost justifies a separate strand of positive duty.

Maria Miller: What is the Minister doing to help women who have taken a career break to look after children at home, and are looking to return to work? What sort of support and training are the Government giving those women?

Vera Baird: Perhaps the hon. Lady missed itif so, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, who will sum up, will tell her more about itbut there is a whole strategy to support women through career breaks. This debate is about justice; that is what my Department is concerned with, and we are committed to promoting equality. We must publish a gender equality strategy by the end of April. We already have race and disability strategies, but the Department for Constitutional Affairs intends to go further and produce an overall equality strategy as soon as we can to promote equality in the Department holistically.

Lynne Jones: Does my hon. and learned Friend think that it advances the cause of women if lone parents who take a positive decision to stay at home and look after their children of ages 11 or 12 face sanctions? Would it not be much better to pursue a voluntary approach that gives women opportunities to enter the workplace, if that is what they choose to do?

Vera Baird: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it is bad for children to be brought up in workless households. When I had just entered Parliament, I was lucky enough to do a short internship with one-parent families, and it is clear that in most one-parent families the parent wants to go out to work.
	Let me come back to the subject of my Department for what will no doubt be a pretty brief interlude. The DCA has a good foundation of supportive networks to help staff achieve their potential, including the DCA's women's issues network, which I have just had the terrific pleasure of addressing. Strong staff foundations are important, and we have them, so we can now look outwards and ensure that our services are delivered fairly.
	To turn to the justice system, we are making progress in the number of women appointed to judicial office. Year on year, the statistics show that the figures are going up. In 1999, women represented only 24 per cent. of judicial appointments to courts and tribunals. I am pleased to say that figures published by the Department today show that overall, by 2005-06, the figures for the appointment of women had increased to 41 per cent. That is a result of initiatives to encourage greater flexibility and ensure that a wider range of candidates apply. Those initiatives have included a career break scheme for salaried judiciary at below High Court level, and the extension of part-time working to the majority of salaried members of the judiciary.
	Interestingly, there is a tradition of part-time working in the courts. Practitioners, from deputy district judges at the bottom of the system to recorders and deputy High Court judges, sit for days or weeks, while continuing to practise the rest of the time. As court lawyers earn reasonable pay, the rates for such part-timers have had to be good to attract people to do work that is in the public interest, instead of otherwise more profitable work. It is ironic that, contrary to its reputation for conservatism, the judiciary might help my Department to lead on, and demonstrate success in, promoting flexible working patterns. My guess is that some of the new women judges are at the junior end of the judiciary, but that might be apt for younger women anyway. There is increasingly a career structure within the judiciary, in which people are promoted from district judge to circuit judge, and from circuit judge to High Court judge. It is important to get women into that career structure, to kindle their ambition for promotion, and to provide flexibility in movement up the chain.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, who has been generous in giving way. She predicted that the interlude in which she could focus on matters that were exclusively her responsibility might be brief, and I fear that it has been. Given that the gender pay gap among part-time employees is sharply higher in the public sector than in the private sector, does she agree that it is important that the introduction of the new public sector duty is focused on the achievement of an outcome, namely the narrowing and eventual removal of that gap within a relatively short time frame? Can she offer us some information about when that will be achieved?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, who will wind up the debate, is better placed to talk about the time frame, but the hon. Gentleman perceives the issue correctly. An interesting questionagain, this is my own private viewis what impact the public gender duty will have on the procurement systems of public authorities.
	In April 2006, the independent judicial appointment commission was launched, and it is now responsible for the selection of candidates for judicial appointments in England and Wales. The commission has a statutory duty to encourage a wider range of applicants for judicial office, while maintaining the principle that selection for appointment is on merit. Justice is key in a thriving society and it is important that the public have confidence in our justice system.
	How are women treated by our justice system? It seems that women have sometimes been disadvantaged by it. We have looked to improve the experiences of women and vulnerable people in many ways, and we are slowly but surely starting to succeed. There are some cheering figures, which I shall relay in a moment. The greatest victories have had to do with domestic violence, and let me make it clear once, and only once in this essentially non-party political debate, that that is down to Labour. It is down to the impact of 100 Labour women coming into the House. In the 30 years after Jo Richardson's private Member's Bill was taken on by the Labour Government of the day, there was no mention of the words domestic violence under the superintendence of the Opposition.
	Jo Richardson's Bill was to provide a private law remedy for domestic violence, but now we prosecute it as a crime, and we do so in specialist courts. There are domestic violence advisers and specialist domestic violence courts that aim to make victims and witnesses feel safe and well informed. They drive the case for women who, if they did not have independent advisers supporting them, would feel far too undermined by what they had gone through at the hands of the perpetrator to drive the case themselves. From April 2007 there will be 64 specialist domestic violence courts across England and Wales. Some 1.85 million in funding has been allocated for next year to fund access to training for independent domestic violence advisers who support victims throughout their case.
	The IDVAsit is an unhappy acronymare key. They provide the support and help that the woman needs. They work virtually hand in hand with her, and help from the time that the complaint is made. The adviser will drive the case and help with benefits changes, the need for a new home, the need to move a child to a different school, child care and so on. She will have her fingers in public authority pies, and that will help her to provide those services for women who are otherwise totally on their own. IDVAs come from the voluntary sector, are independent and can be trusted.
	Specialist domestic violence courts, with which IDVAs are linked, provide specialised personnelprosecutors, officers and magistrateswho have been trained out of the still all-too-prevalent notions about domestic violence. They identify, fast-track and risk-assess domestic violence cases. They group them together, enhance information sharing and provide support.
	I said that I would give some cheering figures. Successful prosecutions for domestic violence cases have gone up from 46 to 65.4 per cent. between 2003 and 2006, by which time the specialist courts were on stream. Guilty pleas have increased from 45 to 58 per cent. In domestic violence specialist courts, 71 per cent. of cases have successful outcomes. It is good to add that domestic violence itself seems to have gone down by 60 per cent. in less than 10 years. It remains an appalling statistic that two women a week are killed by their violent partners, but the figure used to be getting on for three, so we are making some progress, albeit incrementally.

David Drew: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), yesterday provided a written answer to a question of mine on domestic violence. I asked him to look into the number of offender programmes; it is important that the probation service gets involved in the area under discussion. My hon. Friend said that there is a national target for the number of offenders being coped with of 1,200, but there is very high demand for the service. Is there not a great need to deal with domestic abuse offenders by ensuring that there is an appropriate programme, because the only way that we can ensure that there is any family co-operation is if it is certain that the offender will serve on such a programme? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we need to do more in this area?

Vera Baird: I agree. Effective perpetrator programmes can play a role after conviction. They can also play a role before a case ever goes to court. I think that there are now twoand certainly at least one and a halfperpetrator schemes in my constituency. They are aimed at perpetratorswhose partners might have gone to Women's Aid for helpwho indicate a willingness to try to resolve the matter and to try to remedy their ways before things get out of hand. That is a very good model, but there clearly must also be courses available for when people have gone too far and have been imprisoned.

Mary Creagh: Last September I spent a day with the domestic violence support unit at Wakefield police. It has doubled its arrest rate in a period of about six months, and it has a fantastic domestic violence support co-ordinator. Also, my hon. and learned Friend mentioned independent advisers playing a role, and that was being done in a voluntary capacity by a domestic violence survivor who had been almost killed by her husband on the day that she announced that she was finally going to leave him after 20 years of abuse.
	However, in Wakefield the courts have steadfastly resisted introducing a domestic violence court and have organised the court system so that each specific solicitor department has a morning or an afternoon instead of the domestic violence cases being grouped together. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully into that situation in Wakefield, where we have been pushing for a specialist court for the best part of two years.

Vera Baird: First, let me compliment my hon. Friend on her work in the domestic violence arena by serving on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. She obviously also exhibits powerful local leadership and intervenes where that is necessary. If she would like to come to talk to me, we shall try to unblock the jam she describes. It is not right that courts should operate in that way; they should operate around the interests of the victim.
	There are now multi-agency risk assessmentsthey have been operating since 2003which are triggered by the independent domestic violence advisers. They engage the police, probation services, local authorities, health agencies, housing agencies and the refuges and women's safety units, and they share information to reduce harm to very high risk victims and children. Audit shows that, 12 months later, four out of 10 former victims suffer no recurrence of domestic violence. They are repeat sufferers, many having suffered for years, they are at high risk, and the most dangerous time is when someone leaves. Therefore, the results are very promising. I am delighted that Redcar and Cleveland Women's Aid has a trained IDVA. Ingrid Salomonsen, who runs that Women's Aid, tells me that the multi-agency meetings make agencies sit up and take notice when they hear the reality of a survivor's experience, and the protection put in place really works.

Ann Coffey: On increasing awareness, the Stockport Young Women's Forum has produced a magazine called Fe-mail which gives some very useful advice and information, including for people to recognise when they are in an abusive relationship. Many young women consider domestic abuse to be simply physical abuse. They do not realise that they could be in a relationship in which somebody abuses them even though that abuse is not physical in nature. Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that that initiative by young women in my constituency is excellent? Does she also agree that young womenwho might read that magazineare sometimes more likely to listen to what other young women are saying to them than to the authorities, and that therefore young women should be encouraged to take such steps and that this group is to be congratulated?

Vera Baird: I could not agree more. That sounds like a terrific model that we should be trying to roll out. That contrasts positively with some statistics I recall from a couple of years ago, which showed that many 15 to 17-year-old womeneven womenthink that it is okay for a man to hurt a woman if he is angry, and that twice the number of men of that age thought that that was okay. Clearly, the kind of scheme that has been described must be encouraged; that is a very good story.
	There are now independent sexual violence advisersor ISVAs, which is an even more uncomfortable acronym. They are, of course, the consequence of a read-across from domestic violence to rape, and it is excellent that that work is finally being done. They help with the decision about whether to prosecute and support the individual if they decide to do so. Only about 15 per cent. of people who are raped report it, and there is a 5.2 per cent. conviction rate. Therefore, the conviction rate is minute compared with the incidence. We must do everything that we can in this area, because sexual violence is one of the most serious and personally traumatising and damaging of crimes, and it is a huge causeand a consequence ofgender inequality. For victims, it can have significant and ongoing impact on their health and well-being.

Dari Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend is making a clear statement to the House that domestic violence is incredibly traumatising. I ask her to acknowledge that it is also traumatising for a woman to have to move out of her own home with a couple of carrier bags carrying all that she can hold and nothing else, and accompanied by her children who also have to carry what they can in carrier bags and leave so much behind them. When will be the appropriate time for us to request that the person who is perpetrating the violence moves out of the home and leaves the mother and the children there, as they are not only traumatised but dehumanised by the current process?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend is right. There are now sanctuary schemes for those who are able to withdraw within their own environment and lock themselves away from the violence. Also, domestic violence legislation will soon come into force, which will make a breach of an injunction, if the woman has gone to court and the man then returns or hits her again, automatically a crime, so there will be an immediate power of arrest for the police. That puts the responsibility on the public authority to intervene and rescue her. If the case goes to court, a restraining order can be added to the man's sentence to prevent him from coming back, putting an end to the days when a woman might have the courage to go to court and might attain a conviction but when he has served his sentencewhatever that might bethere is no restraint on him returning and starting again unless she goes to the county court for another injunction. I hope that those measures will improve the situation.

Madeleine Moon: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree to look at an initiative in Tasmania? At the first referral for domestic violence, the perpetrator is removed from the matrimonial homeor the home that they share with the person that they have abusedand they have to undertake a course of anger management. Tasmania has recognised the cycle of violence that is linked to the abuse of children and domestic abuse and which leads into criminality. What it is doing is dramatic and unique. Will my hon. and learned Friend take an interest in that experiment and see how it is progressing?

Vera Baird: That resembles something I came across when I went to New Zealand. When there is a domestic violence complaint, the police have the ability to arrest the man and remove him for a fixed period of timeI do not remember for how many days. That is a cooling-off period while the future is better settled. Clearly it is right to remove the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Maria Miller: The hon. and learned Lady referred to the low level of conviction for rape in our country, and I share her concern about that. Does she not share my concern about problems that many areassuch as mine in Hampshirehave in respect of levels of policing, which obviously is directly linked to the level of convictions? Recently, there has been an announcement that we in Hampshire will have 200 fewer neighbourhood policemen. Does the hon. and learned Lady not share my concern that that might not help in terms of addressing the problem of the low level of rape convictions?

Vera Baird: I think the hon. Lady will find that Hampshire has very good domestic violence results, indicating a sympathetic attitude and a reasonable level of policing. There were 1,000 convictions in the past year in her Hampshire constituency, so perhaps she should visit her local domestic violence court and see what the levels of policing are producing under the new model.

David Heath: May I bring the hon. and learned Lady back to her response to an earlier intervention about part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 being brought into force? This is not a criticism, but I should be interested to know why it has taken so long to bring that part of the Act into force. Is there are a system in place for civil injunctions made as a result of a criminal offence to be notified to the local police, so that when someone asks for help, the police are aware that there is an injunction which gives them the power to act immediately to constrain the potential offence?

Vera Baird: Yes. That is imperative. It happens now in some cases because injunctions are often backed by a power of arrest, so there is a system in place but it will need firming up before the measures come into force, in June, I think. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of restraint orders after conviction, but they have a further advantage even if there is no conviction. Many women are not very strong in the witness box, they do not really want to see the perpetrator sent to prisonhe is probably the father of their childrenthey may not give high calibre evidence and they may be unsure what they want. If, although there is an acquittal, the court none the less has an apprehension that there is a danger from that individual, a restraining order can be imposed. That is a concrete step. In a secondary way, it encourages the police, who would bring the case to court, then find that the complainant was not too sure, and they would get nothing from it, so to speak. It is now their public responsibility. The restraining orders give them some pay-back for persevering, which I hope will encourage them.
	We have extended the sexual assault referral centre model. There will be one on Teesside near my constituency soon. That is a very good arrangement between the police and the primary care trust. These SARCs give Rolls-Royce treatment. They believe the complainant from the start. They do not raise the question of her testimony. They treat her as a patient. We have also strengthened the specialist voluntary sector, which can provide longer-term therapeutic services for such victims. Prosecuting people for rape is important, but the recovery of the complainant is vital.
	We have made a number of changes to the way that the criminal justice agencies deal with sexual offences. The definition of rape has changed, the terms in which previous sexual history can be admitted have been cut back, we use special measures such as video links, and the defence of Morgan, long a hate word on the lips of the women's lobby, has disappeared, making the proceedings in rape cases much fairer. In the coming months we will produce a cross-Government action plan on how we intend to address all aspects of sexual violence.
	It is clear that there is a strong link between domestic violence and sexual assault, and this year we are looking to merge these two important issues, bringing these two work streams closer together to provide a more strategic framework for addressing gender-based violence. Gender-based violence goes way beyond domestic violence. Forced marriages are also a form of violence, and the Government fully support the aims of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. We wish to see provision along those lines on the statute book as soon as possible. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on the work that she has done, listening and leading in her constituency on that topic.
	Honour killings also affect women disproportionately. Women whose actions, real or suspected, sometimes when they have been the victim of rape, can lead to a drive in their family, who have no socially acceptable alternative but to remove the stain on their honour by attacking the woman. We must tackle that forcefully too.

Joan Ruddock: May I record, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), her apologies for not being able to join the debate today because she is attending a pressing constituency event? She is extremely appreciative of the notice that has been taken by the Government of the issues that she has raised repeatedly, and looks forward to the legislation.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley deserves nothing less. She has worked tirelessly.

Simon Burns: I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer, not only as a Minister but as a lawyer, to a question about gender inequality. When a family breaks down and the question arises which parent will look after the children, every lawyer will say that the interests of the child are put first. That is right, but why is it that unless the father has a lot of money and can go to court and fight his corner, the courts overwhelmingly interpret the interests of the child as the child or children remaining mostly with the mother, not necessarily the father?

Vera Baird: Of course, the best solution is for the parents to agree. The next best solution, if they cannot do so on their own, is mediation. We have a strong drive in that direction. Cases vary and attitudes to the phrase the interests of the children are diverse. Some think that it is in the interests of the children to be kept in close contact with a violent father. On other occasions, children are given to mothers when fathers would be all too ready to take them. Is it right that there may often be a preference for them to stay with the mother? I do not know.

Simon Burns: Excluding violent fathers, which is a different issue, where the background of the parents is similarthat is, they both work, rather than one of them being at home the whole time, so it is a level playing field in that respectwhy is it that if the parents cannot agree and the matter has to be determined by a court, the courts nearly always find in favour of the mother? The only way that that can be counteracted is if the father is extremely rich and is prepared to try and fight his corner in court. Most fathers cannot do that.

Vera Baird: I do not know that that outcome is so obvious and necessarily follows as night follows day, as the hon. Gentleman describes it. What is considered is overwhelmingly the interests of the child. That is an individual case-by-case consideration by the judge. The existing pattern of care is always taken into account. The availability of the parent to cover the hours and the parent's suitability is taken into account. It is obviously a complex balancing exercise that judges have to carry out.

David Heath: I am sorry to intervene again on the hon. and learned Lady. She referred to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill in the name of my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which was so ably supported and largely instigated by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I asked at business questions what form the Government's assistance to the Bill would take. Will it have Government time? Will the Government take over the Bill and introduce it as a Government Bill, or does it run the risk of losing out in the normal scramble on private Members' Bills, which means that whatever the Government's good intentions, it will not reach the statute book?

Vera Baird: We are considering exactly what to do and how appropriately to deal with the Bill. All that I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that there is the political will to see that it comes into force.
	Human trafficking is another example of violence against women. We recently announced our intention to sign the convention against human trafficking, which will help us build on our current measures and create a framework for future rights. There is a sense that we are moving forward in that respect.
	Half of all women who go to prison have suffered from physical abuse. A third have suffered from gender violence or sexual violence. There is such a fine line in these cases between a victim whose trauma throws her into chaos, and one who descends from chaos into crime. Statistically, women who go to prison are far more likely than men to lose their home and family. Seventy per cent. require detox, and 55 per cent. of the self-harming incidents in prison involve women, though women make up only 6 per cent. of the prison population. Seventy-six per cent. of women in custody are there for less than a year and are largely non-violent, yet the prison population of women increased 126 per cent. between 1995 and 2005, compared with 46 per cent. for men.
	It is easy to see that they have been doubly wrongedwe are slow in starting to intervene to support them out of their trauma, and when they flounder through that trauma and into crime, we send them to prison.

Lorely Burt: Is the Minister aware of the fact that more than two thirds of women who enter prison have two or more identifiable mental illnesses? They often go to prison before an assessment is made of their mental state, and putting them in prison often exacerbates their illness. Does the Minister agree that we should get the court system to sharpen up its act, so that more assessments are conducted on women's mental state using the court diversion system before they are sent to prison, rather than letting them go into a situation that could not be more damaging?

Vera Baird: The courts are, as the hon. Lady has put it, sharpening up their act, and arrangements are now in place. Historically, there have been situations in which in order to assess a woman's mental state, she has been remanded in custody, which, as the hon. Lady has said, can be very damaging. Now there are schemes whereby local mental health trusts and courts work together with the intention that an assessment should be made as quickly as possible, hopefully without detention in the meantime.

John Bercow: By way of reinforcement to the point just made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), may I mount one of my habitual hobby-horses and alert the Minister to the fact that a significant proportion of prisoners in this country, including female prisoners, suffer from a speech, language or communication disorder of one sort or another? I invite her to try to intensify pressure within the Government to ensure that in the future at prisons and young offender institutions an assessment is carried out as a matter of course of the condition of each individual prisoner as the precursor to providing speech, language and communication assistance. Without that, people cannot access education and training courses, which would otherwise be so beneficial to them.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point, and I am happy to see him riding his hobby-horse in our direction again.
	I was about to set out what we are doing to try to prevent women from entering prison, which includes some of the interventions that he has mentioned. Because women are acute examples of the problem, if we can start to get better schemes for women, where women go, men will follow very quickly, which is not an untypical pattern.

Mary Creagh: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has briefly mentioned the problem of human trafficking. As part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into human trafficking, we met some of the women who are being looked after by the Poppy project in south London. We heard some devastating testimony from survivors of sexual slavery who had co-operated with the police and had been given some leave to remain but not indefinite leave to remain. Their enslavers have been sent to prison, but they will be out before this country settles the immigration status of those women. As soon as the enslavers are released from prison, they will return to their country of origin, where those women's children still live. Such children will clearly face a high risk of future criminal action by those people. Will the Minister work with the immigration and nationality directorate and the Home Office to look at that urgent situation and to resolve it?

Vera Baird: I must compliment the Poppy project, which has led the way in giving support and breathing space to trafficked women. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on pointing out how complex, knotty and interwoven the fates of the abuser and the abused are in such situations. We must move forward carefully but speedily towards a solution to that problem.
	There is a Home Office scheme called the women's offending reduction programme, which has functioned since March 2004. It is intended to improve community interventions and services for women, to support greater use of community sentences and to avoid the use of custody for women, where possible. The previous Home Secretary announced a programme called, Together women at the annual meeting of the Fawcett commission on women and criminal justice, which I chaired a year ago. We have invested 9 million in that project since 2005, and there are demonstration projects in four centres. Those one-stop centres allow key workers to support women who are offenders and women who are at risk of offending.

Lynne Jones: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that children suffer disproportionately when women are sent to prison? When a mother is sent to prison, it is far less likely that the child will be able to remain in the family home or be cared for by a parent. In that context, will she look again at the changes introduced in the past year to release on temporary licence, which, while they have assured some consistency in access to release to see children when women are imprisoned and to maintain their contacts with their families, discretion for governors on the length of release on temporary licence and the frequency of its use has been reduced? Surely that is a detrimental step.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend raised that point at a recent private meeting. I do not know why that step has been taken, but I am sure that there is a rationale behind it. I will take up the matter with Home Office Ministers and come back to her. It is germane to mention that Baroness Corston, has been holding an inquiry into vulnerable women and, in particular, vulnerable women in prison, which will be reporting very soon. I expect her report to make recommendations for situations such as the one that my hon. Friend has raised.
	I have discussed trying to get women to be sentenced in a different way, and I have talked about the thin line between being thrown into chaos and turning to crime. There must be a situation for intervention between the two, and my Department is working to increase the awareness of available advice and information, which can help people whose lives are becoming chaotic by providing early interventions to solve problems before they escalate, by helping with fair and proportionate dispute resolution and by delivering expeditious justice. When a person is not in the territory of the specific help provided by independent sexual violence advisers, can we none the less catch that person to stop their debt problems by giving them good early advice, to help them to hold on to their house and to prevent them from drifting into crime in order to ensure that they keep their children?
	Our legal aid scheme plays a crucial role in that respect. Our current legal aid reform proposals have generated a good deal of debate, but what is lost in that debate far too often is that the whole point of carrying out the reform is to make sure that we can join other funders who can give non-legal advice, and thereby give easy access to our legal advice, so we can help as many vulnerable and socially excluded people as possible. We must do that by focusing legal aid away from criminal legal aid towards civil and family legal aid, and by making both systems as efficient as possible. That is what we are doing, and that is what we will do. Women, justice and gender equality in the UK is a complex subject. I have only just begun to address some specifics in this opening speech, but I hope that I have set out some of the work that we are doing to meet the needs of women in our society. I guess that all hon. Members who are here already understand that it will take a lot more. Let us celebrate ourselves, and let us celebrate the progress that we have made. Other women in the world are, like us, considering these topics on this important day. Let us resolve to commit yet more energy and to work in solidarity for yet another year towards a more equal world for women.

Eleanor Laing: I warmly welcome the fact that we are having this debate. For a long time, we had to argue for the necessity for a debate on women's issues and for marking international women's day in this place. I am delighted that we are having a full and thorough debate today.
	I do not entirely agree with the Minister that this is like new year's day. It does not feel like it to me, because I have not been out partying all night and do not have a hangover. No jokes about being legless, pleaseI do have one leg that is working perfectly well. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am a little slow in some things, but I am working under the temporary disability of a broken leg, hence the crutches. However, it is a very good experience for a shadow spokesman on equality to discover, on a day-to-day basis, what it is like to navigate round one's busy life with a disability. I am fortunate in that mine, I hope, will be overcome soon.
	I welcome the fact that there are so many hon. Ladies on the Government Benchesbut there is not one single hon. Gentleman. So much for gender equality in the Government. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Ladies on the Government Front Bench, or indeed any other hon. Ladies, need any support from their male colleagues, but their absence is just so starkly obvious. I realise that perhaps they cannot see it from over there, but I can. It is remarkable that male Labour Members of Parliament think that a debate on gender equality and justice on international women's day is nothing whatsoever to do with them. I like to be optimistic, so perhaps the explanation is that hon. Ladies on the Government Benches are so competent and have achieved so muchas I believe they havethat their male colleagues do not think it necessary to be here.
	Be that as it may, I should like to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for Buckingham (John Bercow), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and indeed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)oh, he has gone. At least he put in an appearance.  [ Interruption. ] I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) is also hereI am sorry, but my ability to swing around is not terrific. I welcome them and my other hon. Friends, and thank Members in the House generally for their support for this debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose

Eleanor Laing: I give way to the hon. Lady, but she will have to forgive me if it takes me a moment to sit down.

Fiona Mactaggart: I will stand up slowly, too.
	Is the hon. Lady placing so much emphasis on the presence of hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches because it is not possible for the Conservatives to muster as many women Members as the 17 who are sitting on the Labour Benches at present?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady makes a perfectly good arithmetical point with which I cannot disagree, but we are making progress in a fair and equitable way. In any case, I have always said that quality is more important than quantity.

Madeleine Moon: I rise in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who was here earlier on. I would not wish the House to fail to recognise his presence or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who was also here.

Eleanor Laing: I accept what the hon. Lady says; perhaps I could not see them.
	In reality, however, the fact that there are no male Labour Members here does not matter, because the issues that we are discussing today affect everyone in our society. When we discuss equality, it does not matter who is the spokesman putting forward the argumentwhat matters is the quality of the argument and what is done in this place.

Vera Baird: One of the men whom the hon. Lady prayed in aid was popping in to talk to someone else and went out again immediately, and another was a Whip, who has to be present. Unlike the Tories, we have the great advantage of having women Whips.

Eleanor Laing: Having been a woman Whip, I know the advantages only too well. Of course, the hon. and learned Lady is right, but I could not resist the very rare opportunity to make such a point. However, we are getting rather off the subject.
	The Minister gave a wide-ranging and thorough speech on matters of great importance, very little of which I disagreed with. All of us, on both sides of the House, have worked together very well these past few years on issues of equality and fairness, and an awful lot has been achieved. However, very many women, in all walks of life, are still at a disadvantage in one way or another, and that is why it is important that we have a full and thorough debate today.
	I realise that the motion is specifically about matters in the UK, as is correct, but I should note that the progress that we have made and the lives that we lead today as women in the western world bear no relation whatsoever to what women are having to suffer in many countries around the world. So much still has to be done for them, but that does not diminish what we still have to achieve in our own country.
	I would argue that there is no such thing as a women's issue. People who do not come to debates like this will sometimes say, Oh, that's just about women's issues and I speak on transport, or I have an interest in defence, or I specifically deal with foreign affairs. Every issue affects women and men, and women are affected by every issue. What there is, though, is a slightly different women's point of view on many of the policy areas that we discuss from day to day. It is good that at last we can dare to say that women do things differently from mennot better or worse, or at least not always. I am not making a value judgment but stating a simple, stark, obvious point, which is rarely stated because it is too obvious or because it is disagreed with. Because women do things differently from men, we sometimes find ourselves in this place, and in many institutions around the country, seeing a way in which something could be changed and improved from the point of view of women, but finding that no one will listen because the argument will always be, We've always done it like thiswhy change it? Often, a small change would improve the lives and working conditions of many women. The Under-Secretary covered some of those issues today, as did other hon. Members in interventions. I shall not attempt to cover everything that we could discuss, not least because I cannot stand up for that long. I am sure that my colleagues are delighted to hear that.
	I should like to welcome, as I have done on every occasion when we have discussed the matter, the great achievements of the Equality Act 2006 and the establishing of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It is a great step forward that Conservative Members supported all the way. I look forward to further progress on the matter.

Fiona Mactaggart: Would the hon. Lady like to comment on the fact that every single equality measure in this country has been introduced by a Labour Government?

Eleanor Laing: No, I would not. We have had a Labour Government for the past 10 years. I have been a Member of Parliament for all that time and, when I have had a chance to speak in this place, I have always supported equality. The Government just happen to be LabourI wish they were notbut the next Conservative Government will continue the march for equality and the work that is being undertaken.
	It is rather pathetic to look back to times past and talk about what happened decades ago. I am concerned about the future and the actions of the next Conservative Government, which will be elected soon and be full of women. I am not concerned about the actions of the previous Conservative Government. The hon. Lady's point is therefore irrelevant but I am glad that she makes political points, otherwise we would have a boring debate. I shall give way any time she would like to make more.
	I would like briefly to speak about three matters, with examples. They are: violence, health and economic activity. First, let us consider the great achievements that have been made. The Under-Secretary spoke at length, eloquently and correctly about violence. I especially welcome yesterday's announcement of more resources for the police to deal with trafficking. I am pleased that the Government have at last, under Conservative pressure, agreed to the terms of the Council of Europe convention on trafficking.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) laughsI shall give way if she would like to make her point audibly.

Lynda Waltho: The pressure that the hon. Lady describes came from not only Conservative Members, but Members of all parties. I remember a debate in which the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) made the same demands. There has also been considerable pressure from my Labour colleaguesmale and female. The hon. Lady should therefore reconsider her comment.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that I gave the hon. Lady an opportunity to make that point. I am well aware that, in previous discussions, many Labour Members called for the Government to take action. I am pleased that such pressure was brought to bear. I am sure that the Prime Minister listens a little to his Back Benchers.
	Much progress has been made with regard to violence, especially domestic violence.

Vera Baird: I thought perhaps that the hon. Lady would like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown), who has entered the Chamber and is a bloke.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that the Under-Secretary has pointed that out. It makes me remember going to teenage school parties when somebody would say, Oh look, there's a boy. I welcome the hon. Gentleman, but since he was not present for the earlier exchange, he may wonder why I am so pleased to see him. Let us leave that aside.
	Let us consider how much has been achieved in women's health and the emphasis that has been placed on it. Choice in maternity services is especially important. However, it is sad that the Government, having achieved considerable progress on the matter, now choose to close maternity hospitals. Services are being taken out of the community at a time when the Government purport to encourage us all not to use cars or travel unnecessary distances. Yet they have a programme of hospital closures. The choice that has been achieved is now being gradually taken away.

Anne Milton: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the women in Guildford who formed an organisation called Helping Hands? The women all gave birth to children at the Royal Surrey county hospital in Guildford. The maternity unit is now under threat and will possibly be moved away. My hon. Friend stresses the importance to women of access to such services locally.

Eleanor Laing: I congratulate that group of women in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is gratifying to note that the people who stand up for the services that they need and protest about Government hospital closures are not only members of the Cabinet but those who suffer from the plans. I commend the group for its work.
	Let us consider economic activity. I use that phrase rather than jobs or the workplace because women in the work force are essential to our country's economy, our society's structure and, indeed, the economies of family life. Women working is not an add-on or an extra. I therefore use the term economic activity because the women who undertake it do so in a wide range of matters. We must recognise that. However, I do not say that legislation should take account of women in the workplace out of altruism or because it is correct, good and encourages equality. It is necessary for the economic success of our country. Without economic success, we do not have the resources for the public services and welfare matters on which we all want to spend public money.

Julian Lewis: In recognising the country's economic success, will my hon. Friend acknowledge the vast contribution of Baroness Thatcher? Does she share my delight in the House's recognition of her achievement through the unveiling of the magnificent statue? Many Conservative Members especially welcomed Mr. Speaker's extremely gracious remarks on that occasion.

Eleanor Laing: As ever, I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend and I am glad that he made that point. First, I agree that it is magnificent to have the wonderful statue. I do not detect much enthusiasm on the Labour Benches, but I did not expect it.

Mary Creagh: Does the hon. Lady agree that the contribution that Mrs. Thatcher made to women entering the work force in my constituency of Wakefield was the shutting-down of every coal mine in the district, which caused male unemployment of 25 per cent? In the city where I grew up, Coventry, there was a similar unemployment rate, caused by the closure of the car factories. Because of the unemployment of men in their household, women were forced into low-paid work to support their families, as my mother was.

Eleanor Laing: Oh good, I am so glad that the hon. Lady has opened up the debate on Mrs. Thatcher's contribution to turning round a country that had suffered from years of Labour misrulejust as nowand to turning round an economy that made not just women but most of the population work in low-paid jobs and industries that were going continually downhill.

Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: In a moment.
	It was not just women who suffered from the economic mismanagement of most business and industry in the UK in the 1970s; the whole country suffered. Had it not been for Margaret Thatcher's leadership of a Conservative Government for 18 successful yearsor some of those 18 successful yearsthe country would have continued to slide downhill. We all know that when an economy gets into difficulties, poverty starts to increase and a country is not flourishing, it is those who are least able to stand up for themselves who suffer most, and they are often women.

Several hon. Members: rose

Eleanor Laing: I will give way in a moment. The short speech that I was going to make is rapidly lengthening.
	To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East, we hardly ever say now, because it has been said so often, but it is true, that Margaret Thatcher made a huge difference to the ability of women in the United Kingdom and throughout the western world to achieve to the highest levels. After she became Prime Minister, nobody could say that it cannot be done. When I was a child, I said I was interested in politics, and I suppose that I argued in a childlike way that I wanted to be a Member of Parliament. People said, You can't be a Member of Parliament. You're a girl. Margaret Thatcher made an enormous difference not only by being there but by being such a success. This country, this place and the women of this country owe her an enormous debt of gratitude.

Lynda Waltho: I, too, have something to thank Baroness Thatcher for: the effect that she had on my life. Because of her, I knew that things had to change. She made me become political, join the Labour party and fight for change. I also remember marching to get my school milk backone of my first political actsfor which I also have her to thank. The hon. Lady would struggle, however, to think of three things that Baroness Thatcher did to advance the cause of women in this country.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady proves my point. I said that Baroness Thatcher made an enormous difference, and she did. Although this is not the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not far from it, and three things would not be nearly enough. I made the point a little while ago that there is no such thing as a women's issue. Women do not live in a different world from men; we all live in one world and one country together. Unless that country is prospering as a strong economy and enough taxes are being raised to fund good public services and help people who need those services, the whole of society suffers. Baroness Thatcher turned around this country and economy to make it successful once more.

Laura Moffatt: Would the hon. Lady consider continuing in this vein? I have a feeling that her speech will be the best thing that Labour Members will use in the next general election.

Eleanor Laing: I could go on, and on and on.

Russell Brown: It is strange how the words quality public services trip off the tongue of Opposition Members. One thing that Margaret Thatcher did was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, which demoralised people working in the public sector and came close to destroying many services in many areas.

Eleanor Laing: It also improved areas of the economy that needed to be tightened up. If it is so wrong, why have the Labour Government not turned it around in 10 years? The time for Labour Members to blame the previous Conservative Government has passed. Given that they have had 10 years in power with enormous majorities, they should have insisted on their Prime Minister changing anything for which they blame the Conservative Government.

Simon Burns: In the light of the interventions on my hon. Friend in the past few minutes, is she surprised that one of the first official guests that the current Prime Minister had to No. 10 Downing street in late May 1997 was our noble Friend Baroness Thatcher? She may not be surprised, but perhaps Labour Members are perplexed, that the Prime Minister has done nothing to reverse the landmark policies of the noble Baroness. Ironically, he has gone even further in some sensitive policy areas, particularly in using the private sector in the health service.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, the Prime Minister invited Baroness Thatcher to visit him in Downing street soon after he took officehe was sensible enough to know that he needed good advice from somewhere, and that he was not going to get it from his own Benches. What a pity that he did not pay attention to it.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting hagiography of Baroness Thatcher. Does she agree, however, that Baroness Thatcher was not the first woman politician to be elected as premier? The elections of both Indira Ghandi and Mrs. Bandaranaike, in India and Sri Lanka respectively, predate Mrs. Thatcher's  [Interruption.] She was not the first woman to lead a country, although, to listen to the hon. Lady, one would have thought that she was. What does she make of the fact that under Mrs. Thatcherthis great champion of womenchild poverty more than trebled? What impact did interest rates of 15 per cent. in 1991forcing more than 200,000 to lose their homeshave on both the lives of women and their children?

Eleanor Laing: First, the hon. Lady has her facts wrong; Lady Thatcher was no longer Prime Minister when interest rates went that high.  [Interruption.] The point is very relevant, but it is not the subject of this debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) first. Of course, I am well aware that some magnificent, powerful, successful women have led other countries, but Margaret Thatcher was the first woman to lead our country. The hon. Member for Wakefield may roll her eyes in wonder, but I care about what happens in our country as well as the rest of the world. As for the issue of child poverty, I come back to the same point: it was the overall performance of the economy that mattered, and that is what Lady Thatcher put right.

Angela Watkinson: Was it not Lady Thatcher who released countless women from the feudal tyranny of local authority landlords, and gave them the independence that comes with home ownership?

Eleanor Laing: It certainly wasand that demonstrates that when a policy is introduced that benefits millions of people at the lower end of the income scale, women benefit most of all.

Russell Brown: Although what the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said was correct, that policy forced local authorities to sell houses. There is a fundamental difference between that policy and the policy that preceded it, which enabled council tenants to purchase their own homes. Local authorities were forced to sell homes for capital expenditure, and we are reaping the price today.

Eleanor Laing: Actually

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I am sure that Lady Thatcher would be greatly flattered that we are conducting a debate all about her, the title of the debate on the Order Paper is somewhat different. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we moved on a little.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will return to the subject of women, justice and gender equality, but let me first end that part of the debate by making the obvious point that Lady Thatcher did more for women, justice and gender equality in her timeand is capable of doing more yet: she is still very active in the political sphere, and I pay tribute to what she continues to do, not just what she did once upon a timethan almost any other single person whom any Member in the Chamber could mention.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: As long as we now move on to the subject of the debate, I will give way.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was reluctant to intervene until now, because when I pointed out earlier that only the Labour Government had introduced legislation to promote equality, the hon. Lady said that she was not interested in talking about things that had happened decades ago. However, I want to put the record straight on interest rates. Let me remind the hon. Lady that for only seven months of the time for which Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, which lasted many years, were interest rates lower than they are today.

Eleanor Laing: That is true, because of the way in which the economic cycle works. As we all know, the present Government inherited a strong economy with low interest rates, and the present Chancellor has been fortunate in being able to keep them low for a long time; but has the hon. Lady not observed that they are now edging up and up, and is she not concerned about that? I certainly am.

Anne Milton: May I conclude the remarks about Lady Thatcher? We seem to be incapable of getting away from her.
	The shrillness of those on the Labour Benches smacks a little of jealousy to me. Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister on her own merits, unlike many Labour Members who could only be levered into the House by means of all-women shortlists.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right; but I am pleased that the existence of Lady Thatcher as Prime Minister spurred as many Labour as Conservative women to become politically active. If her existence, her policies, her attitudes and her brilliant speeches have brought more women into the House, that is a very good thing, whatever those women say and do when they arrive here.

Julian Lewis: As the person who, perhaps not quite inadvertently, began this cycle of the debate by referring to the magnificent statue and the wonderful tribute from Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is not a measure of what Lady Thatcher achieved for men, women and children in this country that throughout our long disquisition about her record, no one has even mentioned the way in which she managed to democratise the trade unions that had made the country all but ungovernable, or what she contributed to the ending of the cold war? I remember that when we debated Trident, the entire official Opposition wanted us to disarm unilaterally at the height of the cold war threat.

Eleanor Laing: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that the title of the debate is Women, justice and gender equality in the UK. I think that we ought to get on with that now.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The point about women and economic activity is that if the very good policies we are now pursuingboth the Work and Families Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2006, which I mentioned earlier, have the total support of Conservative Membersare to be effective on the ground, those of us who believe in them in principle must take the business community with us. I have asked Ministers before, and I ask again today, whether the Government intend to publish guidance to help small businesses, in particular, to put the terms of those two Acts into practice. I am thinking particularly of the right to request flexible working hours. I fear that that there is a misconception in the business community that flexible working is likely to be detrimental to business. I firmly believe, on the basis of evidence that I have seen, that it is likely to be beneficial to business, which is one of the reasons why I thoroughly support what the Government are doing in that regard.
	We have digressed somewhat from what I was saying about achievements relating to violence, health and economic activity. Let me finish what I was saying about economic achievements. For a long time, we have enjoyed a pretty good standard of equality of opportunity in education for girls and boys, but that is not reflected in the higher echelons of business and the professions. I shall say more about that shortly.
	I pay tribute to the many charities and outside bodies that work in the fields we are discussing, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society. Let me also mention, in terms of domestic violence, Refuge and Women's Aid; in respect of encouraging women to be confident and building up their career prospects, the many groups, including the Girl Guides and the scout movement, that are often not given the praise that they deserve; and in the field of trafficking, the POPPY project and Stop the Traffik. I cannot possibly give an exhaustive list and I have omitted far more organisations than I have mentioned, but I want to take this opportunity to commend and thank those who have given their time voluntarily, and have established such excellent outside bodies to enact the agenda that we are discussing. They have improved women's lives over the years, and I am confident that they will continue to do so.
	As I have said, we have achieved a great deal, but there is even more still to be done. The Minister dealt very well with the subject of violence, particularly domestic violence, but let me repeat the statistic that today one woman in three in the United Kingdom is likely to suffer domestic violence at some point in her life. We must not forget that a significant number of men suffer that, too. However, domestic violence against women has always been prevalent. For a long time, we did not talk about it. Now we are and we are doing something about it. I ask the Minister and her colleagues to look in detail at the police's powers to deal with domestic violence. I am not criticising anything that the Minister has said today, and I accept that a lot of progress has been made, but we hear again and again from police officers who have been dealing with crimes of domestic violence that they do not have the necessary powers to do what they would like to do.
	Let us not forget that, if someone is killed as a result of domestic violence, it is still murder. It is not just domestic violence; it is murder. I know that Ministers agree with me on that. I make the point because, in the wider context, people talk about domestic violence as if it is a fringe issue. It is not. It is a very serious crime.

Vera Baird: The police have complained to the hon. Lady that they do not have the required powers. I just wondered whether she wanted to specify what powers she thinks the police should have.

Eleanor Laing: I did not want to take up time by discussing the matter in great detail. I pay tribute to the Minister. In other forums, in discussions in Committees and in other meetings in the House, we often have the opportunity to discuss the matter in great detail. If she were happy to look at some of the written matter that I have, I would be pleased to send it to her. I am conscious that I have been speaking for some time, although lots of other people have been speaking during that time, too.
	On stalking, there is one particular point that I would like to raise with the Minister. She may want to consider that there is no definition of the crime of stalking or the activity of stalking in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I am not suggesting, however, that its inclusion in the Act would put the matter right. My colleagues and I have been doing a lot of work on the issue of stalking, and I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who left the Chamber just a few seconds ago. One of her constituents was tragically murdered by a man who had been stalking her for a very long time. Everyone knew about the stalking: the family, the girl and the police. The police officers did everything in their powerthey were not criticised, and nor should they beyet the man in question was still able to make the life of that girl, who was his ex-girlfriend, a misery, to threaten to kill her, to leave the country, to buy a gun illegally somewhere else in Europe, to come back into the country with an illegal gun and to walk into a public place and to shoot her dead. I give that as one example, but we are all aware of many more. I have met the mother of that girl and the courage that she has shown in campaigning on the issue moved me so much that I cannot fail to give that as an example.
	I am not criticising the Minister or blaming the Government because that would be empty political rhetoric. I am not blaming anyone for what happened. All I am saying is that, since we are all working together very well on the issue, if the Government were to bring forward legislative change, that may improve the way in which we deal with the awful crime of stalking. Conservative Members would wish to assist as far as we can.
	As my colleagues and I have discovered through research that we have done and meetings that we have held, in San Diego in California stalking is recognised as a very prevalent, wicked and difficult crime. The number of stalkers was increasing, so San Diego decided to take a completely new approach to stalking. Police officers were thenceforth trained to treat a stalking incident as a potential murder, because that is what it is. It is not a bit of a nuisance and something that simply has to be endured because of a broken relationship. In taking that different attitude and in training officers to deal with stalking differently, the number of serious incidents and murders that progressed from stalking in San Diego has reduced considerably. If the Minister would like to know more about that, my colleagues and I have a lot more information that we can give her.

Vera Baird: There is a definition of stalking, which is two acts calculated or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. At least two acts have to be committed. I doubt that definitional problems are the real thrust of the problem. However, there is a problem where a stalker does, not nasty things to the victim, but nice things. It is very hard to bring that within any legislative definition, but such behaviour is very undermining and sinister, and is probably just as dangerous as when a person does nasty things, so we certainly have to reflect on that.

Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Minister entirely. I am not suggesting that the matter can be solved easily or that the definitional point is anything more than that, but it is a starting point. The fact that we are having this exchange across the Dispatch Box during an important debate on justice for women brings the matter to the fore. I am pleased that she and her colleagues share our concern about the matter.
	Trafficking, which has been mentioned by the Minister and other Members, is another matter that involves violence and where we have so much more to do. Trafficking is tragic. Look at the prevalence of trafficking and at the number of young women and girls involved, because some of them are still legally children, who are brought into this country and other parts of Europe illegally, under duress and under false pretences. They are literally sold as prostitutes, or sometimes as domestic servantsthat is obviously less of a problem but it is still a difficult issue. When they are sold as prostitutes they are made to work in appalling conditions, with no freedom. That is akin to slavery. I am sure that neither Minister needs me to convince them on that issue. We are all concerned about it. I want to ensure that, by discussing it in the House, it is given the attention that it deserves.
	I suggest that guidance in the health service might help us to identify women and girls who are being forced to work as prostitutes. We often see  Daily Mail-type articles about how scandalous it is that some women have three abortions in a year. Has it never occurred to the health professionals dealing with such cases that, if a woman presents herself three times in a year as pregnant and in need of an abortion, there may be something wrong other than just carelessness, and that that is often the case?
	I am told by respectable and powerful charities that deal with the issue of trafficking that identification of victims is difficult, but could be made easier if professionals working in front-line services were trained to look for the danger signs. I hope that that is something that the Government will consider doing. We will continue our campaign on trafficking because it is tragic, as I am sure everyone in the House agrees, that women and girls are literally sold into slavery in this way.
	The third area in which there is still much to do is health. Taking preventive action is much better for patients and for the economies of the health service in the long run than leaving people to develop diseases and then having to cure them. I want to be quick so I will use just one example. I have worked with the all-party group on osteoporosis for some time, and with the National Osteoporosis Society. It is unfortunatelet me put it no stronger than thatthat at present osteoporosis, which is easy to detect, is not diagnosed in hundreds of thousands of women who go on to suffer from it. It is a disease which, if detected early, can be almost completely cured; its worst ill effects can be avoided. Some men suffer from the disease, but the vast majority of sufferers are women, a large number of whom do not know that they have it because it does not manifest itself in any particularly awful way until most women are in their mid-70s.
	If an older woman suffers a fracture and is made immobile for six or seven weeks, the complications, which may include other health problems such as pneumonia or much more difficult illnesses to treat, can be very serious. It is a shocking statistic that if a woman in her later years suffers a fracture that would be as nothing to a younger person, she is likely to die within six months when she may have been really pretty healthy before the fracture occurred. Usually, such a fracture occurs because she is suffering unknowingly from osteoporosis.
	I really ought to declare an interest. The reason why I managed in a fairly moderate little ski-ing accident to break my leg is that I have osteoporosis. I have become more knowledgeable about the subject, although I have known that I have it for many years. Something that is easily shaken off in one's 40sI was pleased when my doctors described me as youthful in medical termsis pretty serious in one's 70s. Older women's health is a much-neglected area in health priorities. The Minister would argue that if we have priorities some people win and some people lose, but there is a good economic case as well as an extremely good compassionate case for investing in the prevention of certain diseases, especially among the female population.
	I wish to come to a conclusion quickly now, but I have to say a couple more things about women's economic activity and the great steps that still have to be taken to produce equality in the workplace. PricewaterhouseCoopers has produced statistics today that show that there are 40 per cent. fewer women at the top of the professions today than five years ago. The reasons given are of course that child care costs have increased enormouslyby something like 27 per cent. over the past five yearsand that there is insufficient flexibility in the workplace. I dealt with that earlier. Ministers will have the support of the Opposition if they take steps under the Work and Families Act 2006 to extend the right to request flexible working that the parents of small children enjoy to parents generally and to people with family responsibilities.
	It is time that we faced the truth that we are asking women who have children to do two jobs. We need a new approach to the way in which jobs are done at the highest level in our economy. I do not suggest for a moment that this is something that can be done by the Government or Parliament. It is a matter of change of attitudes. I saw advice to young women entitled How to succeed in a career recently, written by someone for whom I have great respect, and who has succeeded enormously in her career. It said that one of the main things that women have to do is to be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work they are doing. Anyone, even the mother of a small child, can be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work that they do from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, but if someone has family responsibilities, they cannot be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work that they are doing. We see young men 100 per cent. dedicated and they go up and up in the work force; they succeed more and earn more and so the spiral is perpetuated.
	The CBI then argues that we should not worry about unequal numbers of women achieving in the professions because there are equal numbers of men and women in the City in well-paid jobs aged 28. Well, that is no surprise to me. When I was 28 I did exactly the same job as my then husband. Of course I did. We all do when it is just a question of being a women without any responsibilities; it is the same as being a man without any responsibilities. But the fact is that we need women to produce children, we need women to look after families and care for elderly relatives so we have to accept that we are asking women to do two jobs. Therefore, we have to encourage not just the right to request but the granting of flexibility in the workplace.

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: I must not go on more than another minute, but I will certainly give way.

Meg Munn: The hon. Lady is offering support for our policies in this area, but the Conservative Opposition have voted time and time again in the past 10 years against measures that have supported women in the workplace such as the extension of maternity leave and the introduction of two weeks paid paternity leave. When did their views change?

Eleanor Laing: The Minister knows that we supported the Work and Families Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2006. I appreciate the political point that the Minister is making, but we, the Conservative party nowas I said before, it is the Conservative party that I am concerned with, the one I am speaking for todayare very much in favour of increasing the right to request flexibility in the workplace. It leads to better working relationships and allows women and families more flexibility. Given the proper guidance, I am sure that business will accept that flexible working is a benefit, not a detriment.
	Women cannot be expected to carry out their duties in paid work properly unless their children are properly cared for. A courageous group of women who are campaigning for better special needs education will begin an all-night vigil this evening in Parliament square. If it is difficult for a woman with children to balance her work and family life, how very much more difficult is it for a parent with a disabled child to do so? The special needs education system needs to be totally and utterly reformed, and I give every support to the vigil taking place this evening.
	The equal pay issue was highlighted this week, in that many local authorities throughout the country have still not got their finances in order to enable them to implement guidance that the Government rightly laid down many years ago. I hope that situation will soon be remedied. For too long, employers, including local authority employers, have said, Well, it doesn't matter because women will put up with it.
	I have spoken for much longer than I originally anticipated because I wanted to give way as many times as possible to enable a lively debate. I am glad that we have had such a debate. It is important that these issues are discussed not only when we introduce legislation, because legislation does not solve everything. Attitudes need to change, and I believe that they are changing. An enormous amount of progress has been made, but there is still much to do. We have supported much that the Government are doing on the equality agenda. The next Conservative Government, whom we shall see in the not too distant future, along with a massively increased number of women Conservative MPs, will take

Meg Munn: That is what you said last time.

Eleanor Laing: It is, and I will say it the next time, as well; indeed, I will go on saying it. It is going to happen, and not just through hope; I am glad to see that the opinion polls also now tell us that it is going to happen. My concern is not just who the personalities are in a given Government, but what a Government do. The next Conservative Government will be very responsive to the equality agenda, recognising that it is essential to the future of our country.

Dari Taylor: I take great pleasure in speaking in debates on women, and I take particular pleasure in speaking in a debate on international women's day. I want to make it clear that I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of my very close friend Vera Baird, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. Her contribution was thoughtful and provocative

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we do not use the actual names of Members of the House of Commons.

Dari Taylor: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that mistake.
	I wish that I could make the same warm comments about the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), whose contribution I found very disappointing, to say the least. In the past, we have had some very good contributions from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan); she was missed today.
	Women have to face many challenges in their professional lives and in other forms of employment, and within politics. I want to concentrate for a moment on some of those challenges. My party has done very well on this issue, and if I were to produce a report, it would say, Good progress has been made, but there is more to do. Could do better. Now, nearly 20 per cent. of Labour Back Benchers are women, and it would be appropriate for that figure to rise to 40 per cent. That would constitute excellent progress, and it would be even better if it rose to 50 per cent.
	I will not by any means give lectures to the other parties represented here, but I am keen to say to members of my own party that the creative, positive and challenging input of women in this House, in local government, and in the professions and all other forms of employment, has to be recognised. Such input is highly valued. I would be very disappointed if my party moved back into the world of the old boys' network in which only those who belong to it are supported, and from which those bringing up families, working and performing a number of other tasksthose who are outside that easy operational networkare excluded. My party is still fighting that fight today. We have won so far; the challenge is to keep on winning.
	I want to dwell for a moment on a recent visit that I and four other Labour Members paid to Pakistan. Before doing so, I should like to declare an interest, in case it is appropriate to do so. That visit was funded by three business men from my constituency, all of whom are concerned that we should get to know Pakistan better and develop our relations with it. That is what we did during our visit. We all most gratefully thank Mr. Javed, who not only provided funding but offered excellent support in all that we did in Pakistan.
	I want to tell the House about that visit for one reason if nothing else. We all say with great pride, as do I, that this is the mother of all Parliaments, but in Pakistan today, 33 per cent. of those in the Senate, the National Assembly and local councils are women. Women share power in those institutions. Nobody denies that many of the women in the Senate and the National Assembly have wealthy backgrounds and probably come from political families, but that does not prevent them from clearly defining the various issues and concerns, and producing policies that are greatly to the betterment of women, families and communities.
	While we were there, we listened to Senators talk about how they are persuading Balochistan and other places to support girls' education by paying parents 200 rupees. We examined carefully the legislation that the National Assembly is introducing on outlawing honour killings. The assembly is doing its best to ensure that the law is supported. We also observed and got involved in the many literacy programmes. We saw women learning to read. Over time, they see the value of learning to read and its relevance to their children. Indeed, they are not just learning their own language; they are learning to speak ours, as well. They are women from the villages, ordinary women, but they have tremendous courage and tenacity.
	We were impressed by all the groups we met. The women Senators were sparklingI am sure that the male Senators are just as good, but we were determined to meet the women, and that is what we didand very focused on, and determined about, what they were doing. The National Assembly representatives also all spoke English as well as we do, and they made us all thoroughly ashamed that we do not speak any other languages.
	If one group stood out as seriously pleasing to meet, it was the local councillors, the ordinary women. One said, I could not read my own language when I was elected to the council, but I can read it now. We heard the empowerment in their voices and saw that they knew what was required for their communities. Their determination to deliver those policies was extraordinarily powerful.
	It was a good visit. It was great to see how micro-credit is giving so many people a better lifestyle. It was superb to see the female literacy centre in Taxila, which was not a college or purpose-built building, but a person's home. He had provided the space because he knew the importance of the literacy programme. It was great to see how community organisations in the village of Pink Malikan worked and to speak with the woman organising the Nomad arts gallery. I think that I have a lot of tenacity, but those women have serious amounts of tenacity.
	Top of the tree for me was going to the Fatima Jinnah women's university and speaking to 22-year-olds who did not want us to go. We answered their questions for 45 minutes to an hour, but we could have spent a couple of days with them. Those young women are Pakistan's tomorrow and they are seriously good. They are challenging and determined that they will be part of tomorrow's Pakistan and deliver a better life for people in that country.
	Coming from the mother of Parliaments, I was pleased to see affirmative action work in Pakistan and the reality of 33 per cent. representation for women providing a clear image of power and value to other women. I hope that we will see that as valuable and that my party will quickly adopt 33 per cent. as the minimum threshold for affirmative action for women in this House, on councils and in other elected bodies.
	I have an equal commitment to the issue of infertility and I have the pleasure of chairing the all-party group on infertility. If any hon. Member has not had the experience of speaking to couplesoften in their 20s, sometimes in their 30s and 40sstruggling with this issue, I urge them to do so, although I cannot believe that there is anybody who has not done so. It is an issue in which we all, in different ways, get very involved. Today, one in six couples in Great Britain have problems conceiving. People are often embarrassed by that, and think that their womanhood or manhood is reduced. That is nonsensical, but that is the impact that infertility has. The statistic of one in six is probably wrong, and it is likely to be at least one in five.
	The all-party group has had a positive and supportive relationship with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has helped to deliver for the group, but the issue needs more than one Minister in one Department. We need the whole House to be very involved in the issue. The Government have put reasonable amounts into that area of health policy and made it clear that each couple should receive three IVF treatments if they are suitable, but that does not happen. The fact that primary care trusts are not obliged to implement National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance means that they can decide that IVF treatment is not a priority. Perhaps there is a postcode lottery, because we know that many young couples suffer from the fact that some PCTs do not offer IVF treatment.

Maria Miller: I have written to the Department of Health on numerous occasions on behalf of constituents of mine who have had problems accessing IVF treatment in the way that the hon. Lady has described. A postcode lottery does exist: women in Hampshire cannot get IVF treatment until they are over 35, and even then they get only one cycle. Does she share the concern of our colleague my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who undertook a nationwide survey on this matter? His findings show that women throughout the country suffer from the problems that she has set out. The Government should long ago have begun to address that inequity, in what is a sensitive and important matter.

Dari Taylor: I agree with an awful lot of what the hon. Lady has said. The hon. Gentleman's survey is excellent, and I shall refer to it again later, but the all-party group has also conducted a survey of PCTs. The shameful fact is that a third of them did not bother to respond. Moreover, two thirds of those that did respond displayed a much less determined approach than we would have wanted. Their casual approach to the problem was totally unacceptable.
	We need more than a statement of expectation. Therefore, my first request to the Ministers attending the debate is that they undertake to secure from the Department of Health a directive requiring all health authorities and PCTs to implement NICE guidance in respect of the provision of IVF treatment. Without such a directive, and in the absence of women knocking on their doors and telling them of the difficulties that they face, those bodies will simply assume that no problem exists. I assure the House that the problem does exist, but the sad thing is that it is often invisible.
	Researchers and medics involved in infertility tell us that IVF treatment gives women under 35 a one in four chance of becoming pregnant, and that that success rate is even higher for women under 30. The evidence shows that when women of the right agethat is, under 27are given the right medical treatment, there is a 70 per cent. chance that they will get pregnant. I am sincere when I say that, if cancer treatments could achieve the same success rate, we would all be demanding that they be made available. However, although the figures for all cancer treatments are very blurry, a 5 per cent. cure rate is the usual one cited. Cancer treatments are funded by the NHS, and no one in the House would ever say that they should not beindeed, we would all call for more funding to be made available. If IVF were to be funded in the same way as cancer treatments, very many more people who need it would be able to benefit.

Angela Watkinson: There is a very generous IVF treatment service in my own hospital trust area, and it has found that it is most effective to offer women two cycles of treatment. In areas with restricted funds, women can receive only one cycle of treatment. Does the hon. Lady agree that that might be a waste, and that it is better to treat 50 women with two cycles of IVF than 100 with one?

Dari Taylor: The hon. Lady makes a very important point, for which there is statistical proof. I do not think that any of us are fooled by the information that the research has supplied. We are keen to get that research disseminated more widely and, in particular, accepted at PCT level.
	If there is a funding problem, we need to know about it. From my experience, I know that there is no such problem, so I want to know why three cycles of IVF treatments are not being made available. Why must a woman wait until she is 35 before she is put on the list? Why must she then wait two years to be seen by a consultant gynaecologist? A woman can reach the age of 40 after 15 years desperately wanting treatment for a disease. Part of her body does not function, so why must she wait 15 years for treatment? We would not dream of such delay in treating any other medical problem, so my second request is clear, although controversial: whenever we talk about infertility in this place, we should accept that it is a disease, not a lifestyle issue. It is a diseaseparts of a functioning system do not workand there are ways to improve the condition and possibly achieve conception. Many women desperately want a family.

Barbara Keeley: One of my constituents who needs IVF treatment is in the unfortunate position of having her hospital in one local authority but living in another, which has a three-year waiting list. She is 32 and has had ectopic pregnancies, so IVF is her only chance. Members have made some useful points, but does my hon. Friend agree that women such as my constituent who have suffered several ectopic pregnancies and for whom IVF is their only chance should be given priority over others in the queue?

Dari Taylor: I can only agree. People living in the same road can be in different PCTs, so policy differences are completely unacceptable. We need a central Government directive on the issue, otherwise the present situation, in which PCTs make different policy decisions, will never change. Invariably, PCTs are trying to interpret what the Secretary of State said about full treatment, but for many PCTs a full treatment is only one cycle of IVF, not three; yet three treatments were anticipated and that is what we believe was said at the time.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is generous in taking interventions. I want to pick up on her point about funding. She said that in her PCT area there was no problem with funding for IVF treatment. Unfortunately, I live in an area that suffers severe funding problems for all sorts of health care, because we receive only 80 per cent. of the average. I have been told by my PCT that my constituents cannot have access to IVF treatment because the trust does not receive average funding, which means that tough choices have to be made and unfortunately those women suffer as a result.

Dari Taylor: It would be appropriate if the hon. Lady wrote to me. I am not making a political statement, because that is not how the all-party group operates, but if she is saying, as I think she is, that there is a money issue, we need to look at it. Information from other PCTs shows that value judgments are made about priorities, so it would be valuable to hear from the hon. Lady. In fact, I definitely invite her to join the all-party group. That would be tremendous.
	At present, a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is under way, which is appropriate. I have observed the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority throughout Great Britain and find its regulatory procedure overwhelmingly controlling and strict. In actual fact, I think they reach a point where they begin to stigmatise infertile couples and stigmatise children who are born through fertility treatments. Let me explain.
	If we look at the Government's detailed central register of all couples who have received infertility treatment, we find thatregardless of whether they have achieved pregnancy or notall children born through that procedure are included and maintained on it. I view that as intrusive and totally unnecessary. It is my third request this afternoon that they are taken off that register, as they should not have been placed on it by he HFEA in the first place.
	My fourth request is to look further into private clinics. We are very aware of how they work. They have a job to do and I am certainly not knocking them, but it would be very valuable if they were brought into line with NHS procedures. Indeed, I would think it appropriate if they became part of the NHS so that they did not exist outside it and could not promise women and young and older couples things that cannot be done. We need to see clearly what their competences are in order to deliver.
	Will the Minister reflect on a further request? I have been greatly involved with the Newcastle fertility centre. As well as supporting IVF as a treatment, it is an excellent research establishment. Every year, this excellent research centre, which does work that any infertile person would acknowledge as invaluable, has to pay out 70,000 in licences. For every patient it incurs a cost of 100 and every patient pays 100. It is a tax that the infertile have to pay. It is totally nonsensical and I would hope that Ministers looked further into that problem.
	Before finishing, I want to refer to a piece of research that was carried out very thoughtfully by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). His study has proved very valuable. Although his research probably tells us what we already know, sadly, despite the fact that we all know it, it remains an absolutely controlling influence in the delivery of infertility services. The hon. Gentleman points out that in some authorities, one has to be aged 30 or 36 to receive any IVF treatment; in others, the age is 35 and still others 36 to 39. There is not an hon. Member in the House who doubts the research showing that IVF's capacity to achieve a conception becomes significantly less for women over the age of 35 and that it will work for a singularly very small minority of women over 40.
	Let us think about a young couple, perhaps around the age of 22. If the medics have said clearly that the prognosis is that they are not going to conceive naturally, why are we asking couples to wait from the age of 22 until they are 30 to 36, 35 or 39 before treatment kicks in? Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's research is valuable. He believes that infertility and fertility services are being marginalised and that there could well be a problem with funding. What he is saying, in total, is that the delivery of such services is messy and has no uniformity. I have always believed that any medical intervention should be provided at the point of need. The point of need seems to vary according to where people happen to be living. I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that it would be valuable to have a look at the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful piece of research.
	My real request is for the House to accept that we are seeing the development of new procedures and technology in infertility. We are seeing some staggeringly good developments in clinical standards. Slowly, we are seeing a change in public attitudes to infertility and we should encourage that to continue. I accept that there is a need for effective regulation, but I want infertile couples to be treated in the fair and just way that other patients in the national health service are treated, and from which they benefit.

Lorely Burt: It is a great honour to speak for the Liberal Democrats on this important day. Members will be relieved to learn that I shall not use the occasion to make cheap political points about Baroness Thatcher or anyone elseexcept to say that she acted as such a role model to her party that it has the lowest percentage of women in Parliament, at 9 per cent. of Members elected. At the rate that the Conservatives are going, it will take 400 years to achieve parity of gender. However, I acknowledge that Baroness Thatcher stimulated womenLabour and Liberal Democrat Membersto go into politics to try to remedy the damage that she did.
	I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for signing the early-day motion that I tabled yesterday to mark international women's day. The word mark is more appropriate than celebrate because, although we have made some advances, many of which were heralded by the equal opportunities legislation 30 years ago, women in Britain and all over the world are still not treated equally and they are still abused physically, mentally and sexually. On the Order Paper, the title of today's debate is Women, justice and gender equality in the UK, so I will confine most of my remarks to what is happening here at home. Goodness knows, there is enough material for 10 debates, let alone one. However, on international women's day, it is right to spare a moment to think about our sisters overseas who suffer regular physical abuse, rape and torture. We are debating equality and justice in the UK, but compared with some of our sisters overseasin Rwanda, Sudan, and many other parts of the worldwe do not know that we are born.
	The theme for international women's day this year is ending impunity for violence. According to the UN, violence against women is the most common and least punished crime in the world. One in three women has had violence perpetrated against them. Domestic violence affects women all over the world, irrespective of location, culture, ethnicity, education, class or religion. Violence against women is the bully's way of demonstrating their power in the most humiliating andliterallyhurtful way. In the UK, behind closed doors, women put up with sexual and physical abuse every day of their lives and say nothing.

Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Lady include in that list emotional violence from a controlling partner?

Lorely Burt: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Violence is not only physical. It can also encompass the controlling behaviour of partners. It has to be said that men are also subject to that type of violence. We must not forget about the men, but it is most often perpetrated against women.
	The women who flee to one of the few refuges in this country are not even the tip of the icebergthey are the tip of the tip of the iceberg. How do we go about protecting women in Britain? It is a shameful fact that things do not seem to be getting better. As far as rape is concerned, they are certainly getting worse. Ten years ago, 24 per cent. of reported rapes resulted in conviction. Today, the figure is less than a quarter of that, at under 6 per cent. I hope that the Minister for Women and Equality will comment on that in her speech, and will suggest why that is the case.
	There are twice as many women in prison as there were 10 years ago, yet 80 per cent.the same proportion as 10 years agoare there for minor offences such as shoplifting. Again, I would be grateful if, in her speech, the Minister enlightened me on why that is. We lock those women up, but we close local women's prisons and make sure that they are sent so far from home that it is almost impossible for their families to get to see them. Every year, 16,000 of their children are left motherless. Of those 16,000, only 5 per cent. are able to remain at home. Families are broken up, and children are the innocent victims of a policy that could not be better designed to destroy lives.
	What of the women entering prison? As I said when I intervened on the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), two thirds of women who go to prison have a mental illness, and 55 per cent. test positive for class A drugs. Are we really saying that prison is the best place for many of those people? It makes one want to weep.
	I will not even go into the subject of prostitution, except to say that 90 per cent. of prostitutes are addicted to class A drugs. Those women are stigmatised and rarely helped, but there is no social criticism of the men who use and abuse them. Instead, I will move on to the apparently fairer world of work. Economic independence and equality are among the most powerful tools at our disposal for creating a fairer and more just society. Money talks. About 30 years ago, we passed landmark equal opportunities legislation and although the pay gap is not as bad as it was 30 years ago, on average, women still earn 17 per cent. less than men for full-time work and 26 per cent. less for part-time work. The situation for graduates is even worse. Women graduates begin their careers earning an average 15 per cent. less than men, but by the time that they are between 35 and 40 years old, that gap has widened to 40 per cent. The glass ceiling is strong and thick and shows no sign of cracking.

Meg Munn: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware that the most recent statistics on the gender pay gap show a closing of the gap for women in their twenties, which may herald some progress.

Lorely Burt: Women in their twenties generally have not had children, and it is when children come on the scene that women start to fall behind. However, I welcome the Minister's optimism; I wish I could share it, but I have reservations.
	Moving on to women in top jobs, only 7 per cent. of top judges and 4 per cent. of directors of the UK's top 100 companies are women. Fewer than 20 per cent. of Members of this House are women. Of course, ethnic minority women face two glass ceilings, so that wonderful pool of talent is going to waste. Whether one looks through the glass from above or from below, it should be recognised that the talent that we are wasting could be used to create a much more prosperous and equal society.
	Talking of a waste of talent, what about women entrepreneurs? Only 14 per cent. of companies in this country are wholly owned by women. Women are also less likely to be offered bank loans. Furthermore, female entrepreneurs are forced to pay on average 14 per cent. more interest than men when banks deign to give them loans.
	What should we do? Is it enough to carry on making the right noises and making incremental changes? At the current rate that we in Parliament are going, it will be another 200 years before we get equality, as the Minister said in her opening remarks.

Eleanor Laing: People often quote interesting statistics to do with the different generationsthe Minister did so. However, we are not currently making progress at the same rate that progress was made over the past century; we are making far greater progress. That is one of the reasons why the Members who are present are able to have the debate that we are having this afternoon. Do not many of us work on this matter 100 per cent. of the time? Therefore, progress will be far greater. That is not empty optimism; that is determination.

Lorely Burt: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is determined to make progress. However, I think that I am right in saying that the rate of progress is what is happening at the moment; it does not rely on any huge historical background.

Meg Munn: May I provide some clarification on that? On current policiesthis has been reviewed by the Fawcett society following each general electionLabour Members will achieve parity much more quickly. That will take between 30 and 35 years, which is still far too long, but we are making much more progress than the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.

Lorely Burt: The Minister is right that the Labour group is making much more progress, and I shall address that shortly. However, at our current rate of progress it will take too long whichever way we look at it; I am a bit too impatient to accept that it will take potentially eight more generations before we achieve parity.

Maria Miller: I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question which perhaps I should have asked of the Minister during her speech earlier. Many women Members who are present in the Chamber have family commitments, myself included. I am not sure whether the following question is about a particular party political issue or just one that the entire House must deal with; how do we make this job more attractive to women who have family responsibilities? It is a difficult job for anyone to do, let alone those with young children. It might be unfair to have asked that question of the hon. Lady but I would be interested to hear her answer.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that excellent point. The Committee stage of the Companies Bill lasted seven weeks last summerit was arguably the longest and most boring Bill in history. A Labour Member discovered when her child care arrangements broke down that there are no crche facilities at the House of Commons for Members. Her little daughter learned to walk on the corridor outside the Committee Room, which was one of the few pleasurable and enlightening moments that I experienced during the passage of the Bill. I do not tell that story to belittle what the hon. Lady says, which is hugely important. I have asked the Minister about crche facilities and she has been generous and kind enough to say that she will look into that.
	The entire atmosphere of this place is very women-unfriendly. Let us consider what happens if a Member stands up at Prime Minister's Question Time to ask a question of the Prime Minister. A wall of noise suddenly comes towards them if Labour Members get the feeling that it will be a hostile question, which can be very intimidating for men and women Members. The behaviour often resembles what I imagine public schoolboys' bad behaviour to be, with pointing, shouting, catcalling and repeating remarks. It is not edifying. The hon. Lady made a good intervention.
	At least the Labour party has been brave enough to take radical action to redress the situation. To its credit, women make up 27 per cent. of Labour Members. The Liberal Democrats trail with 14 per cent., and the Conservatives, as I mentioned, have only 9 per cent.
	Five years ago the Liberal Democrats had a passionate debate on positive discrimination. Major figures in the party exhorted the members to vote for positive discrimination, including the revered Baroness Williams and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but all to no avail. The vote was lost because a number of equally passionate young women spoke up to say that they did not want to be token women.
	When those women have been through the mill of competing for jobs with the menwho give their undivided attention to their careers, while the women are bringing up a family, arranging child care, deciding what is for tea, and ensuring that there is something to cookand then having to take jobs below their ability, or taking time off and coming back to find that they have lost out on the career stakes, that they will get less pension, that they will have a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for older and infirm members of the family, and that they have been failed by the system because we do not have a critical mass of women in Parliament to focus on family-friendly policies, let them come back and tell me that they do not want to be token women. I am sorry about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had to get that off my chest.

Dari Taylor: I am very pleased to listen to the hon. Lady. There is an honesty and integrity about all she says, which is typical of a woman, if I may say so. Does she agree that we should say loud and clear that we have 100 years of all-men short-lists? Is it not time that we were allowed to have all-women short-lists? What is their problem?

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and her kind remarks. All I can say in reply is that's democracy for you. We Liberal Democrats must do a better selling job to get party members to agree. The inequality strikes at the heart of fairness. Unless people look beyond the value of the greater number, it is difficult for many Members to accept the principle that we should positively encourage some people over and above others.

Angela Watkinson: Discriminate, the hon. Lady means.

Lorely Burt: I will settle for encourage.
	It is clear that until we have women in the most senior decision-making positions in this country, the only progress that we ever make will be incremental. It is a chicken and egg situation. While the laws are made predominantly by men in a place that cannot even provide crche facilities for Members, we are on a hiding to nothing.
	Please do not get me wrong. I would not want any hon. Member to think that I dislike or disparage men. There are many men in the House and everywhere who care passionately about equality and justice for women and for men. I acknowledge that in many areas of life, such as the one that was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)access to children after a relationship break-upmen can get an extremely raw deal. But just for today, let us speak up for the girls.
	We need more women-friendly policies coming out of the House. We also need more access to flexible working. I was delighted to hear the comments by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and I hope that she will support my ten-minute Bill to extend the right to request flexible working to the parents of children up to the age of 18 and to encourage more companies to extend flexible working, if it is economically advisable.

Dari Taylor: Is the hon. Lady surprised that there are job shares in parts of Africa, something we do not even countenance here?

Lorely Burt: The hon. Lady has made a good point. We have the concept of job share, and enlightened companies that use the concept of flexible working, including job share, have foundthere is Equal Opportunities Commission evidence to this effectthat staff turnover and absenteeism are reduced and that productivity is increased.

Dari Taylor: Obviously I have not been clear enough. I was describing parliamentarians who job-share.

Lorely Burt: I think that that is absolutely delightful, and we can learn from that excellent example.
	Companies all over the UK are beginning to wake up to the idea of flexible working. In that situation, men and women can share in caring for children, instead of one partner having to make an economic sacrifice, which, in most cases, reinforces the gender divide.
	We need more support for women victims of crime and of sexual and physical violence. Most of all, we need to give women a hand-up into decision-making and leadership roles, so that we can take our rightful place in British society today, standing shoulder to shoulder with the men and not trailing behind.

Madeleine Moon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I pay tribute to the obvious research that has gone into her presentation today. She has shown commitment to bringing forward the issues that face women today on international women's day, and I thank her for the high level of her contribution. In this House, we need women to set an example, so that there can be no suggestion that women come into this Chamber ill-prepared and unable to argue on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of their sex. I recognise her performance and her contribution.
	The United Nations has designated this international women's day as a day when one should look at, in particular, violence against women. I do not want to look at the failures of the past; I want to look at how we can move forward and address the problems that we face.
	This morning, I stood in front of the statue of Mrs. Pankhurst as we laid flowers and paid tribute to her contribution in raising the status of women and obtaining the right to participate in democracy for women. The right to participate in democracy has allowed women in this Chamber, in local authority council chambers and across the world to fight for justice and equality for women. Mrs. Pankhurst set the stone that allowed women to move forward in society. However, Mrs. Pankhurst and her women faced the great consequence of stepping forward, which so many women face across the world. They faced male dominance, male opposition and imprisonment.
	I want to discuss women as an exemplar of best practice, but Britain is falling behind as an exemplar of best practice. I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on the recent visit of women parliamentarians to Pakistan, and I saw how a country that we would often regard as falling behind in the democracy stakes has moved forward on several issues. As she noted, 33 per cent. of the seats in its legislaturethe National Assembly and the Senatehave been allocated to women. I hope that when we further consider the reform of our upper House, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that a good percentage of women are there as of right.

Dari Taylor: Fifty per cent.

Madeleine Moon: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion of the figures that we should aim for.
	In one of the meetings that we went to, Minister Ehsan, the Minister for women and youth, said that the first step that she took when she became a Minister was to recognise that when women are suspected of committing a crime, that affects their families, their status, their children, and their relationships within their communities. She decided that all women should be automatically granted bail pending trial unless they were held on suspicion of crimes of terrorism or manslaughter, because, as she said, when we imprison women and take them away from their families, we are building additional problems for their communities, their families, their villages, and especially for their children. I feel particularly passionate about this, perhaps because we have no prisons for women in Wales. As a result, Welsh women face 100 per cent. of their sentence away from their community, their family, their children and, sometimes, their languagethe language in which they prefer to communicate. That cannot be acceptable.
	I was pleased to hear the recognition from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the women's prison population has gone up by 126 per cent. in recent decades. The best strategy to reduce female offending is to improve women's access to work, to improve their mental health services, to tackle drug abuse among women, to improve their family ties, and to improve the life chances of young women through our schools and in our communities. I have to acknowledge that the Government have achieved a lot on all five of those methods. However, every time we move forwardit is the great challenge for politiciansour communities say, Well done, we expected you to do that, now what are you going to do? That is what we have to face in relation to women and offending.
	We have improved on the services and facilities that are out there in our communities, but there is still much more to do. We have to acknowledge that 71 per cent. of female prisoners have no qualifications. Our schools must not fail women in terms of the opportunities that they have when they are young, and our employers must encourage them to obtain those qualifications; otherwise, they will make it more likely that women will fail and face a life that could eventually lead into crime. We know that 65 per cent. of women reoffend on release. Our prisons must reduce that number by offering opportunities in terms of skills, education and family links.
	We know that nearly 40 per cent. of women prisoners lose their homes. When people leave prison without a home to go to, they will almost certainly reoffend. It is a tribute to women that the figure is as low as 40 per cent. It is a tribute to their creativity, energy and determination, but it is a disgrace that we do not campaign more effectively and rigorously to enable women and men to have a settled and secure future on leaving prison.
	If we want to stop reoffending, we must get rid of the constantly swinging door of choosing between sleeping on a friend's sofa until the friend is driven crazy and reoffending to get back to some sort of security and a home. We must give people something to fight for. That can be a home.

Lorely Burt: The hon. Lady referred to 40 per cent. of women who lose their homes getting reconvicted. The overall reconviction rate for women in prison is 64 per cent., but only 47 per cent. are reconvicted following community service. Given her comments about the increase in the number of women in prison, does she agree that we should consider more appropriate methods of punishment? I do not say that women should not be punished. If they have done wrong, they must be punished. However, if the effect of the punishment is disproportionate when they leave prison, does she agree that we should consider alternative forms of punishment?

Madeleine Moon: To clarify, I said that 40 per cent. of women lost their home while imprisoned. I shall deal with community service and community punishment later. I hope that we can continue the dialogue then.
	The average reading age of prisoners in this country is 11. That is a national disgrace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South said, when we were in Pakistan, we saw women who were desperate for education. They wanted to learn English and increase their educational opportunities. They recognised that that was the gateway to a future for their families. Women in this country feel the same way. We must focus on people who are struggling with their education, including their literacy, and put more effort into ensuring that no one leaves school with a reading age of 11.

Dari Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the changes that we have witnessed in women's lives, whether we are considering literacy or confidence, have recently been clearly attached to the introduction of Sure Start in our communities? Does she perceive Sure Start as another way in which to ensure, through expanding its activities, that the women about whom she speaks so passionately and appropriately benefit?

Madeleine Moon: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments 100 per cent. I visited my local Sure Start centre in north Cornelly recently to discuss child trust funds. I met very young women, who were first-time, single mothers. They were deeply committed to their child trust funds and their children's futures. All were contributing additional funds to the trust funds because they wanted their children to have a future. They were determined to work hard to provide it for them. All the women were developing a life plan and making a commitment to what they would do and how they would move away from staying at home with their children, find work and develop their skills base while their children were still young and they had the opportunity of child care and support from the Sure Start centre. They wanted to improve their chances of work once their children were in full-time education. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention.
	We must accept, however, that one of the problems faced by women today is the incredible level of pressure. In trying to fight to move away from our past, and to enter the world as full partners alongside men, many women face a struggle. Rising numbers have mental health problems, especially in the prison population. Seventy per cent. of women prisoners suffer from two or more mental health problems, which is a disgrace. How can we accept that and not pour money into mental health and into diversions that will take women away from a situation that cannot help but exacerbate their mental health problems? Women are five times more likely to self-harm while in prison than men, and women do not self-harm unless they are driven to deep despair. This is a national disgrace: 55 per cent. of all self-harm in prisons is by women, and yet women are only 6 per cent. of the prison population. That is an epidemic, and we must do something about it.
	Thirty-seven per cent. of women who are in prison will have made a suicide attempt before they were admitted to prison. We therefore know that a large proportion of women in our prisons are extremely vulnerable and fragile. Prison is not the way to deal with people who have mental health problems and who are fragile and vulnerable. Fifty-five per cent. of women who arrive at prison will test positive for class A drugs. With treatment, we can successfully help women deal with their drug abuse. All too often, however, that treatment is not available.
	Prison is particularly damaging for women when it breaks their ties with their families, and especially if it breaks their ties with their children. The relatively small number of women's prisons and their geographical location mean that the majority of women will serve their sentence away from their family, children and partners, on whom they may have to rely to look after their children. That is not acceptable.
	Why are women in prison? Twenty per cent. of women's prisoners have been through the child care system. Fifty per cent. have reported being victims of childhood abuse or domestic violence. Their lives before entering prison have therefore been chaotic. Are we helping to make their lives less chaotic by taking them into prison? Historically, our prison system has been designed to contain potentially violent male offenders. The system is unsuitable to deal with the problems of vulnerable women, many of whom had lives of abuse before entering the prison system. Half of those women have suffered from domestic violence and one third have suffered from gender and sexual abuse. Our most vulnerable women have therefore spent their lives being neglected as children, beaten as wives and imprisoned as women. The majority are not in prison because they are a danger to others; many are there as a result of petty crime. The commonest offences for which women are sent to prison are theft and handling stolen goods. Sixty-four per cent. of women offenders serve sentences of six months or less, and one third of that 64 per cent. have been sexually abused.
	How are we to tackle the emotional, sexual and drug abuse that those women have experienced in their lives? How are we to tackle the illiteracy and restructure the employment opportunities of those serving sentences of six months or less? Would it not be better for us to concentrate on providing the community-based support, punishment and rehabilitation that non-violent offenders who pose very little threat to the wider community are best placed to receive? That would ensure that taxpayers' money was better spent, it would provide more room in our prisons for those who are a danger to others, and it would enable officers in women's prisons to focus on high-risk and repeat offenders. Crucially, the vicious circle of drugs, crime and dependency could be squared before those women's children also become caught up in it.
	I know a prison in western Australia called the Boronia Pre-release Centre for Women. Women are given just one opportunity to go to Boronia. Before they go, they are told If you fail here, you will not be given this opportunity again. They are allowed to keep their children with them until they reach the age of four, and with their children they live in small units of bungalows. They are offered education, jobs and skills. Hon. Members who visited the prison with me were shocked to discover that one of those skills was the preparation and serving of food, and that so proficient were the women that they provided all the catering facilities for judges on the western Australian circuit. I thought it particularly apt that the judges should be served by women whom they might have sentenced.
	At the time when I visited the prison only one woman had reoffended, and I think we should look to it as an exemplar for the service that we could provide. Certainly, if Wales is to have a women's prison, I hope that it will be based on Boronia.
	This is an important debate. It enables us to think carefully about the needs of women in our world, and about how we can improve their lives and equality of opportunity still further. I am proud to be a member of a Labour Government, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull recognised the steps that the Government have taken to move the agenda forward. I hope the opportunities that we offer in future will mean that fewer vulnerable women take the road of offending and more follow a different path, the path towards secure families and secure jobs. I hope they will be helped to produce a generation that will continue to raise the status of women, and will allow their opportunities to grow and develop even more.

Maria Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon). We were standing by the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst this morning in the sunlight, laying down flowers to mark what is an important dayinternational women's day. I was pleased to be there to lay down flowers on behalf of the Conservative party to mark that day.
	Much progress has been made since the suffragette movement called almost 100 years ago for full and equal voting rights for women. Politicians today can celebrate a great number of things. Conservative Members will be celebrating the fact that the first ever female Member of Parliament sat on the Conservative Benches. That lady represented Plymouth, Sutton and has not been mentioned this afternoon, although other ladies have been mentioned at length. At the risk of incurring comments from Madam Deputy Speaker, the first female leader of a political party in this country was a Conservative, Baroness Thatcher, who became the first female Prime Minister. I was inspired by Baroness Thatcher to do what I am doing today. At the time I was inspired, I was living in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend. When it comes to women in this place, it is to do with quality as well as quantity.
	We have talked about many issues in the debate, and I should like to focus on one issue in particular but, before I do so, I think that hon. Ladies should reflect on one point. A number of us in the Chamber are new Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). We joined the House in 2005. When I was sworn in at the desk down there, I was the 277th woman Member of this House. Many of my constituents find it shocking that, in the 90 years that women have been able to be elected to this place and to take their seats, we have yet to reach 300. While we may make party points about how many women there are on the Labour Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and how many women there are in the Labour party and in the Liberal Democrats, all of us have failed to get 300 women into this place. We should work together to do more to solve that problem.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Lady may want to reflect on the fact that, in the Labour in-take in 2005, out of the 40 new Labour MPs, 26 were women. That is the first time in our party's history that the majority of new MPs were women.

Maria Miller: I think that that is great and I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising that point. We are doing a great deal in our party to increase the number of women in it. I just think that there is a philosophical difference in how we are going to do that. I thoroughly endorse my party's approach. We must ensure that we have women coming forward who want to do this job. I go back to what I said in my earlier intervention: for many women, this is not the ideal job. It is not something that they particularly want to do when they have a young family. For those of us who have young families, we know how difficult it is. I urge the hon. Lady to think about how we could make this more of a place that more women want to come to. That is important.
	Before I move on to the main issue that I want to raise, I point out that there are many other women politicians in this country who do not get as much profile as they should. In Hampshire, I am delighted to say that we are just about to have a meeting to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women in local government. I am delighted to represent the county of Hampshire, which has 22 female county councillors. Indeed, my own borough council in Basingstoke has 18 women councillors. At local government level, we have found a way of enabling women to come through. We have heard that that has happened to an even greater extent at regional government level, too. That is to be applauded. I thank all those women in Hampshire who do so well to represent their constituents.

Meg Munn: The hon. Lady is making an important point about local government. There are indeed more women actively involved, but it is still only 29 per cent. across all the parties and the age profile is older, suggesting that women still take on those roles when their families have grown up.

Maria Miller: The Minister raises the important issue of older women who come into politics. There is much to be said for older women coming into politics when they have perhaps done another career, because they have experience that they can bring to this place or to local government. I appreciate that the Minister drew attention to that age profile to emphasise that such political roles conflict with child care duties, but we should not undermine the contribution that older Members of Parliament and councillors make.
	International women's day is about women seeking equality in society; an equal footing with men. How can they best achieve that? One important way is through the workplace. One of the major changes that has happened in the past few decades is the increased participation of women in the workplace, especially mothers. Now, 80 per cent. of the women who are employed in pregnancy return to work, a fact that I reiterate because I sometimes think that some outside this place can forget it. Those women account for a quarter of our female work force.
	As people who are interested in these matters, we all know that two thirds of women with dependent children work. That is not a new phenomenon but has been a fact for a number of years, but that trend is increasing. It is the norm for children to be brought up with two working parents. It is certainly the norm in my constituency of Basingstoke. It is important for us all to remember that. Some say that the increase in female participation in the work force, especially in the past decade, has made a bigger contribution to global economic growth than developments in China. We cannot underestimate how much the increased participation of women has changed the economic focus of this and many other countries.
	Why women are staying in the work force for longer is often debated in the media. It is perhaps worth revisiting the facts so that we have them before us. Yes, women are having children later. They first establish their jobs and perhaps have higher income potential as a result and that encourages them to go back into the workplace after having children; there is an economic incentive to do so. However, the majority go back not for career development or to keep their minds stimulated, although I am sure that that is an important factor, but because they need the money. They go back for financial reasons. Some 75 per cent. of women go back to work for financial reasons. It is little wonder when one looks at the facts.
	There is an unprecedented level of consumer debt. Credit card debt among British women is now more than 11 billion and unsecured loans to women amount to 20 billion. The average overdraft of a woman in this country is 500. In total, female overdraft debt is 4.6 billion. Perhaps that is the new issue that feminists should be looking at. Debt is an important driving factor in getting women back into the workplace.
	Women are already doing an awful lot to ensure that they go back to work on their own terms. Seventy-five per cent. of women change some aspect of their job after they have had a child. The majority of such changes relate to reduced working hours. It is about trying to improve the work-life balance. It is something on which I certainly think people should have more choice. The choice to return to work is important, and clearly there is a financial imperative for many women.
	The Government have made great strides in increasing maternity provision, expanding child care provision and creating the right to ask for flexible working in certain sectors of the work force. Those are important and positive developments. I cannot underestimate the amount of additional changes that have been made, usually by large employers to their working practices to encourage more of their female workers back into the workplace after having children. Certainly in my constituency of Basingstoke a number of my larger employersindeed, employers throughout the constituencydo all that they can to encourage women back into the work force. Why? We have less than 1 per cent. unemployment in Basingstoke. We need to use all our work force to the best degree; otherwise, we will find it difficult to fill jobs.
	So progress is being made, but all too often it is still tough to make jobs pay after having children, despite the changes that have been made. The Minister will doubtless have seen the headlines just 10 days ago on the Equalities Review research, which pointed out that mothers face the worst discrimination in the workplace. Mothers with children aged under 11 are 45 per cent. less likely to be employed than men, despite all the work that the Government have done to date in this area. As I have said, many mothers try to change jobs to give themselves more flexibility; indeed, one in five mothers moves employer after having their first child to try to get more flexibility. However, the simple fact is that they all too often move to jobs that are less skilled. They downgrade to a lower-skilled jobthis is downward mobilityand as a result their wages fall by approximately 16 per cent. Their wages fall not because they have reduced their hours, but simply because they are doing poorer-skilled jobs.
	The simple fact is that this country's economy is not maximising the full potential of these women. They account for an increasing part of the work force, but we are not maximising the true potential of that growing proportion of our workers. In many ways, we are trying to fight our economic battles with one hand tied behind our backs.
	Reports such as the Leitch report are deeply concerning. There is clear evidence that the market in unskilled jobsthe sort of jobs that many women are being forced to take, so that they can have flexible part-time working to fit around their familiesis drying up. There are some 6 million unskilled jobs in this country, but the Leitch report reckons that by 2020, there will be just 500,000. So a group of women is being forced to look at an ever-dwindling supply of low-paid, low-quality jobs that are far below the standard of work that they perhaps undertook before the birth of their child.
	A lot of concern has been expressed about the impact on children of having a working mother. Everybody has a view on this, but a recent UNICEF report indicated some worrying trends in the outcomes for our young people not just in the past few years, but over a long time. Many Members will appreciate the concerns that exist about the rise in antisocial behaviour. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister feels that the trend for women who have had children to take up lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs sits well with trying to solve some of the problems that such reports have pointed out.

Dari Taylor: The hon. Lady is making some interesting points and I am listening to her with great care. She is not saying that working mothers are the cause of the increase in antisocial behaviour, is she?

Maria Miller: No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that there is deep concern, as evidenced in the UNICEF report, at the fact that there continues to be difficult outcomes for children, and one big change has been that mothers no longer stay at home as much as they used to do. There is a great deal of pressure on parentsbe it single-parent or two-parent familiesin their working lives. Indeed, there are many different pressures on families. The hon. Lady will agree that the breakdown of families is demonstrably affecting outcomes for children. The blame for these factors cannot be laid at any one person's feet. However, the problems that we experience in family life in Britain today should be cause for concern in all parts of the House.

Madeleine Moon: Does the hon. Lady accept that the problem is not that women are working, or even that both parents are working, but society's unwillingness to set boundaries and limits on personal behaviour? That starts with children. Many of the nanny-type programmes on television, in which someone goes into a household where the children are behaving badly, are about helping parents to understand that their role as parents is to set limits and boundaries. That is not to do with working but with taking responsibility as an adult and a parent.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The important point to note is that if parents are present in their children's lives, they are able to do that. If parents are working long hours under pressure and are not able to be there to put in place those boundaries, that is a difficulty. I am sure that she would agree with me about the need for employers to be understanding about the need for parents to be physically around more in their children's lives so that they can put in place those boundaries.
	It is interesting to consider what is happening in other countries, especially the US, where they have implemented many of the family friendly policies that the Government have implemented here. Despite that, the number of hours that women are working in the US has increased and that is a lesson for us to consider. Just implementing such policies is not enough. We need to consider further how we can give women the sort of flexibility that will give them the time at home to undertake the duties that the hon. Lady mentions. Parents need to spend time with their children to help them grow up, form their personalities and be good citizens in the future.

Justine Greening: I should say that I am not a parent, but one of the concerns that many parents have is that even if they can fit their normal working hours around school times, school holidays can be a problem. There is a mismatch between parents' ability to be around and the time that the children are at home.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and those of us who have school-age children can sympathise with it. While many employers are sensible and flexible, and understand the value of having women workers in the work force, they may find it difficult to accommodate that sort of flexible working. Sometimes they find it difficult to accommodate for good reasonsperhaps because they are led by their clients and need to be responsive to thembut sometimes it is because they have not considered the benefits to their company of embracing more flexible working. All too often, companies see flexible working as a way of retaining staff, but it can be useful in recruiting staff.
	I can speak from personal experience, as before I became a Member of Parliament I was a director of a company. I found it difficult to recruit high quality, well qualified women. Sometimes the best women to employ were those who had children and needed flexibility in their working patterns, because they were dedicated to their jobs, they were reliable and they wanted to make the job work. Flexible working, even accommodating school holidays, can be one way to attract and retain the best staff.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Lady talked about learning lessons from the US about the flexibilities that had been introduced there. However, the US is not a good example, because of its culture of very long hours. The majority of workers have two weeks' holiday a year, so their economy is very different from ours in the UK.

Maria Miller: I would like to agree that the US is different, but I am not sure that it is. As a country, we have a reputation for very long working hours. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I think that this country's working hours are among the longest in Europe, if not the longest of all. What problems do women who have had children and who want to re-enter the workplace encounter? How can we remove the pressure on them to downgrade their jobs and take lower pay?
	One difficulty has to do with integrating the idea of part-time and flexible working with more senior jobs. For example, just 3.6 per cent. of jobs at the higher occupational and managerial grades are performed by females working part-time. In contrast, well over half of the women in clerical jobs are part-time. That shows the mismatch between the numbers of women able to work part-time in the better paid and more highly skilled jobs and those who can do so in less skilled and lower-paid employment. We need to consider how we can ensure that flexible, part-time working can permeate all levels of the job market.
	At the opening of the debate, I listened with great interest to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She talked about the great advances that had been made with part-time working in the judiciary. I am not sure that I share her positivity about that, as I believe that much work remains to be done to encourage a more flexible way of working in all areas of professional employment. An idea was floated earlier about part-time working or sharing jobs in this place, but I think that that may be a little further off.
	Another problem, according to the statistics, is that women who take up part-time employment on re-entering the work force earn 27 per cent. less per hour than their full-time counterparts. The financial burdens that women face mean that they need to re-enter the workplaceand they may also choose to go back to workbut what can the Government do to support them? Going back to work must be a positive choice for women, and they should not be forced to downgrade and accept lower rates of pay. That will not help us to maximise the potential of women in this country today.
	Many statistics show that there are many benefits to be gained from adopting a more flexible approach to work for women. For example, two thirds of the organisations that have implemented part-time and flexible working report reduced absenteeism and staff turnover. However, we must make sure that the part-time jobs that are available are the right ones, and that they fulfil the potential of the women who do them.
	The Minister for Women and Equality will wind up the debate, and I hope that she will set out what the Government are doing to help mothers to return to the workplace. Helping mothers on benefits back to work is very important, but so is helping all mothers, regardless of whether six months or six years have passed since they had a baby. Too many women in my constituency feel left behind by the advances in IT, for example, but they have also lost confidence in their ability to participate in the workplace. What are the Government doing to help them go back to work and be economically active in a way that fits in with their family commitments and with the training that they received earlier in their working lives?
	Also, what can be done to help small and medium-sized employers, as they are often the ones that find it most difficult to understand the benefits of flexible working for women, both now and in the future? I am not talking about introducing regulation and making them feel that part-time working for women is a burden. Such companies need to be able to understand that flexible working can benefit themsomething that I found out when I employed women on a part-time basis in the company that I worked for.
	Earlier today, at the event that many Members attended to mark international women's day, Baroness Boothroyd, the first woman Speaker, reminded me of the words of John Stuart Mill. In his work  The Subjection of Women, he said:
	I think that almost everyone, in the existing state of opinion in politics and political economy, would admit the injustice of excluding half the human race from the greater number of lucrative occupations, and from almost all high social functions.
	Those words were read out today as we laid flowers at the memorial to Emmeline Pankhurst, and although they were written 140 years ago they are still highly pertinent, so I urge the Government to consider whether the policies they are pursuing truly address the issues.

Madeleine Moon: Given the sentiments that the hon. Lady has just expressed, does she share my concern that her party's selection of 14 male candidates in a row indicates that there may be a long way to go before we achieve equality of opportunity?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for making a relatively political point. All I can say is that we are doing much to encourage women to come forward for jobs in this place. We want highly qualified women with the experience to represent their constituencies here. Yes, it will take us time to fill those places, but we do not want the problems experienced by the hon. Lady's party after the 1997 election, when far too many women MPs found that it was not the job for them. That does not help anybody. We need to make sure that the women who come to this place know the job and can commit to it for more than just one Session.
	We need to make sure that the Government's policies on women and the workplace truly address the issues that affect the 23 million women in this country, especially the 12 million in the work force, many of whom have families. At present, I am not sure that the policies ensure that they can maximise their potential for the benefit of our economy in the future.

Diana Johnson: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. I note that the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) says that we should mark international women's day rather than celebrate it. She has a point, but we need to celebrate the huge advances that have been made for women in the UK and around the world.
	In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) said that talking about the number of women MPs was a political comment, but it is a good political comment, because it shows that political parties are taking seriously the need to have representatives who can reflect the community and society in which we live. As more than 50 per cent. of our citizens are women, it is right that the number of women MPs should be higher than the current 19.8 per cent., well behind countries such as Mozambique, Cuba, Costa Rica, Argentina and Belarus, which is shameful given that ours is the mother of Parliaments.

Justine Greening: Obviously, I do not know why the voters of Putney chose a Conservative female MP over their previous Labour male MP, but the hon. Lady has hit on something: we need better representation of women in the Chamber, which I hope will eventually happen on both sides of the House. It is taking us some time, but we are making efforts to achieve it, as I hope she will acknowledge.

Diana Johnson: I am certainly willing to acknowledge that. As has already been said, if we leave things as they are without taking positive action, it will be generations in the futureour children's children's childrenbefore we have a genuinely representative Parliament.

Madeleine Moon: It was suggested that women find working in the House particularly difficult and that because of those difficulties many have chosen to stand down rather than continue working here, but does my hon. Friend agree that many Membersmale or femalecan find it a difficult place to work? It is not just women who find it difficult: some men, too, have stood down after one term because they have found the rigours and time commitment difficult to manage.

Diana Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we have concentrated, as I understand it, on one woman who made a point about standing down particularly because of how the House operates. We allmale and femalehave frustrations about how the House operates, and my hon. Friend puts the case very well.

Judy Mallaber: On the same point, speaking as one who entered the House in 1997, I think that we should put on record the fact that a swathe of women did not give up. Most women who came in at that time have stuck with itin spite of all the difficulties. As a pamphlet produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) pointed out, those women have made a huge contribution in raising many issues that would otherwise not be on the agenda. We hope that women Members coming forward from other parties will make a similar contribution, as I am sure they will.

Diana Johnson: It is worth stating that all political parties now recognise the need for a more representative group of MPs. I will concede that point, but I think that it is a question of how one goes about achieving that in a reasonable amount of time.
	I would like to talk about the skills and abilities of women in this country and to recognise that there is still some way to go in maximising women's potential and ensuring that they have a full role to play in society. I would particularly like to mention what is happening in my area of Yorkshire and the Humber.
	First, however, I want to pick up on one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) during what seemed a rather lengthy debate about the merits of Margaret Thatcher. A key issue for any woman MP is that we must be mindful of how best to assist other women to think about a career in politics, whether at local or national level. One disappointing aspect of the entire period of the first ever woman Prime Minister of this country was that she had only one woman in her Cabinet. That seems a great waste of an opportunity. A woman leader could have recognised other women in the Conservative party and promoted them, and it is a great pity that she did not.

Eleanor Laing: We debated that subject at all only because so many people wanted to talk about it. There is a genuine debate about women and the management of the economy, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important for women in this place to encourage other womenfrom all parties, but mainly from our ownto become Members of Parliament. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) will agree with me about that, because I first got her to stand for the town council and now she is a Member.

Diana Johnson: I would like to move on and comment on two particular subjects. The first is the role of local government and how important it is to ensure good representation of women at local level. Secondly, I want to speak about women entrepreneurs and the need to support women in management and senior management and ensure that their voices are heard.
	Local government is obviously important because it is the closest government to local communities. It is often a way for women to enter politics. I have found around my constituency that lots of women are involved in the community and voluntary sector. They stand as chairs or treasurers and they have important roles to play. However, there is still quite a lot of work to do in getting them to think about the next step up and about standing for local government. The figures showthe Minister put this on the record earlierthat about 29 per cent. of our councillors are female. That is still too low. It was 27.8 per cent in 1997 and 28.5 per cent. in 2001, and now it is 29.1 per cent. Progress is slow. If we look at the range of women who hold positions on local councils, we can see that they tend to be older and, often, retired women. To have a healthy democracy, we need a range of young, middle-aged and older people. We need to recognise the skills and experience that they bring to the job at various stages in their life.
	There is a lot of work to do when it comes to encouraging women to think about standing for the local council. As has already been pointed out, it is a launch pad. If someone gets on to a local council and finds that they enjoy the cut and thrust of politics, they may want to think about standing for a regional assembly or for a national position as a Member of Parliament. It is vital to the health of all political parties that women are encouraged into local government.
	However, if we analyse the role that women play in the new structures that many councils havethe cabinet structuresthe findings are rather disappointing. In my city of Hull, we have a cabinet of 10 and only one member of it is a woman. That is disappointing. In Barnsley, it is one of nine; in Leeds, it is one of 11. York is slightly better with three of nine. Those are disappointing figures and we need to keep under analysis how the cabinet structure is working and whether it is really serving the needs of women councillors.

Barbara Keeley: I cite the example of Trafford council, of which I used to be a member, which benefited from a female leaderwho is now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Familiesand a female deputy leader. The council got to the point at which it had women as 50 per cent. of the cabinet, and 40 per cent. of the Labour councillors were female. Does my hon. Friend agree that, again, it is a question of role models? We had two excellent role models in the leader and deputy leader of the council.

Diana Johnson: Role models are incredibly important. In Hull, we have had the benefit of Councillor Kath Lavery, who was the portfolio holder for regenerationa key issue for the city. She led with distinction and came at things from an interesting angle. She was well respected in the business community and the wider community. Unfortunately, she is no longer in the cabinet, but we need role models like that, as my hon. Friend said when talking about her experience in Trafford. In Hull, years ago we took the decision to have a health portfolio holder in the cabinet structure, to address the health needs of the city. That was something new for Hull and it led to some innovative work in relation to the eat well, do well scheme, which I have commented on several times and which provides free healthy school meals in the city. That was pioneered and led by a woman cabinet member, Councillor Mary Glew. Having women in the cabinet can often bring a different perspective and a different view, which is welcome.
	In 1994 I stood for election in the London borough of Tower Hamlets as a local authority councillor, and I was a member of that authority for eight years. One of the interesting and unusual things about that local authority was the wider range of ages among councillors; we also had councillors who represented all the different ethnic communities in Tower Hamlets. Many also held full-time jobs, so the council had to adapt itself and think about how it should structure meetings and when was the most appropriate time to hold a full council. Flexibility had to be built in. The council worked quite well and has achieved a great deal.
	In the forthcoming elections in Hull in MayI think that it is the only place in the United Kingdom where this is the casewe will have three 18-year-olds standing for the Labour party, taking advantage of the changes brought in under the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which moved the age at which people can stand as candidates from 21 to 18. However, they are three young men, and it is a bit of a disappointment that we did not manage to get an 18-year-old woman to stand, because that would have sent a message about good role models. It would have shown that young women have a role to play in making decisions locally, just as young men do.
	I want to comment on the NHS Appointments Commission, whose job is to make appointments to primary care trusts and acute trusts. The excellent chair of the Hull teaching primary care trust is a woman, but I noticed that recently, all non-executive director posts have gone to white men. I raised the matter with the commission, because there is an issue about non-executive roles being held by a representative group, and not just white men. For too long, white men have dominated the decision-making bodies in this country. The NHS Appointments Commission took my comments seriously, and I think that it understands the need to be a little more proactive in seeking out peoplewomenwho have the skills and ability to work for a primary care trust.
	I want to discuss women and enterprise. There is a fairness issue to consider, and we should make sure that women entrepreneurs are properly supported. There is also an economic argument; we should make sure that women use their talents and ability to set themselves up in business and help to regenerate areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber. Women entrepreneurs make up 6.8 per cent. of the UK's working population. Obviously, that figure is small, and it needs to grow. Yorkshire and the Humber do not fare too badly, but I found that a number of women traders are sole traders working in the service industries, and particularly in hairdressing. There is merit in that, but we need to move women on, so that they grow their businesses and think about diversifying into other areas.
	I was interested by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report about senior women managers that was published today. Unfortunately, some of the figures show a reduction in the number of women in senior posts, but an article on the report shows that
	among Britain's top 100 stock market-listed companies there are now more women in head of function roleswhich means they have someone reporting to themthan there were in 2002. Five years ago 11% of these positions were held by women while this has now increased to 20%.
	That shows that there is good work going on.
	I particularly want to talk about the comments of Jackie Brierton, who heads Prowess, an organisation that supports women who want to start up in business. She says that a lot of women get to a certain level in the corporate world but then opt out and try to set up business on their own, because of the lack of flexibility that has already been mentioned today, and because of the focus on having to work long hours in a rigid way, and that is interesting. She says that in the past the evidence for that change has been anecdotal, but the report provides statistical evidence for that view.
	Women in Yorkshire and the Humber have benefited greatly from an organisation called Women's Enterprise in the Humber, which offers mentoring and support. Maureen Foers, the body's project director, is a fabulous role model for women who want to set themselves up in business. She has had 35 years' practical experience of running her own businesses, and she has assisted many women in the area who want to develop and grow their businesses. It was interesting to read about her background.
	In 1971 Maureen established a business, and she said that it was an extremely isolating experience for a woman. Business networks mainly had male members, and that created a challenge for her, as it was necessary for her to bite the bullet and join them. To date, she has been the only female president of the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce. She was the first woman to be elected to the CBI's Yorkshire and the Humber regional council, and she has been an active member of many local, regional and national partnerships. However, what is really special about Maureen is that she gives her time so freely to women who want to start up businesses. She is incredible. She is a very busy woman. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on all of us in business or politics to encourage and support women wherever we can, and what Maureen does is a fine example of that.
	Hull university put together the Empathy-Edge project with European money to support women in management positions through e-mentoring, using various new technologies to ensure that women were supported when they took on their first management role. I had the great pleasure of going to one of its conferences and of hearing mentors and those they were mentoring talk about the positive outcome that that relationship had brought about and how both mentors and those they were mentoring had benefited from it.
	Therefore, excellent work is being done, but more needs to be done. There are many challenges facing us, but I am very proud to be a part of the current Parliament. Of my intake, 26 of the 40 Labour MPs were women. That is fabulous, but we need to do more. I am sure that all the parties are trying to do more, but it is Labour that has delivered for women, not only in the number of MPs, but in legislation over the past 10 years.

Angela Watkinson: This has been an interesting debate, which has teased out a lot of aspects of the life of women in this country. The title of the debate is Women, Justice and Gender Equality. I shall focus my remarks on gender equality, and in particular on the questions of what that really means and, to be provocative, whether it can be achieved.
	Women certainly have numerical equalitywe form 50 per cent. of the populationand certainly as a society we regard women as of equal value and equal importance. I find gender competition rather tedious, in the workplace in particular. I do not regard myself as a woman MP; I regard myself as an MP who just happens to be a woman. I can vouch that I have never encountered any gender prejudice in my journey through application and campaigning and so forth.  [Interruption.] Several female Members do not agree, so clearly I have been fortunate. Perhaps people treat us the way we allow them to treat us.

Meg Munn: I am not sure how the hon. Lady would explain the following anecdote that was included in the Fawcett Society report after the 2001 election. One woman from the hon. Lady's party described being interviewed by a committee in which she was asked what her husband would do for sex during the week while she was in Parliament.

Angela Watkinson: I know the person involved, and that was just one comment from one other person. The only instance of gender prejudice that I have encountered came from another woman, who asked me in the final meeting before I was electedthe special general meetingBecause you're so old and you're brain isn't working as well as it used to, how will you manage to read Green Papers and White Papers? My instant reaction was to say to myself, I must not rise to this bait, and I assured her that I was like wine in that I was improving as the years passed.

Barbara Keeley: I sympathise with the hon. Lady, and I certainly think that women in my party used to have such problems. It might be useful to her if I mention that members of my party are not allowed to make ageist, sexist or other such comments. Might it be helpful to suggest that course of action for her party?

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution, but we are not allowed to say such things in our party either. However, once the words are out it is not possible to unsay them; it is not possible to get the genie back into the bottle. If somebody has said something, it has been said.
	I wish to refer to a parliamentary trip I went on to Iran in 2001, soon after I was elected to the House. It was a cross-party visit for women MPs on women's issues. There were 14 committees in the Iranian Parliament, and there was one woman MP on each committee. The trouble was that none of them spoke English, and I could not speak their language. Therefore, we were entirely reliant on interpreters. Every time I met one of those women, I asked the same question: Are you involved in the whole spectrum of policy formation, or are you just consulted on how a particular policy will affect women? My question was in my language, her answer was in her language. What happened as the words went back and forth I do not know, but I never did get an answer to that question.
	The real challenge is equality of opportunity. It is not an easy matter because of one unavoidable, fundamental difference between men and womenthat is, women have children and men do not, and that will never change. All the inequalities for women relate to that basic fact. Babies and children are treated equally, whichever gender they happen to be. In education, girls and boys are treated equally, although that has not always been so.
	I will not disclose how long ago this was, but when I was in grammar schoolI went to a co-educational grammar school, which was quite advanced for its timeit was not unusual for a male teacher to say to a girl pupil, It doesn't really matter if you don't understand, because you're only going to get married. The word only made the remark even worse. It was demeaning because it implied that we were second class citizens of less significance than the boys, who would do all the important things in life. Happily, that would not be tolerated in our schools today, and the thought would not even pass through the heads of the teachers or head teachers in my schools.
	The trouble starts when girls get into their teens. That is when they are extremely vulnerable because they are the ones who will produce the next generation. One of the places we fall down is in sex education in schools, which relies on the provision of a great deal of sex information. What girls need to be told is that if they become sexually active very young, they run the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, which can last for many years and affect their fertility, which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) referred to in her remarks, or it can lead to unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions, which can have long-term emotional and physical consequences.
	What girls need to be told in those lessons is the realities of life; that if they indulge in precocious, under-age sex, often with unsuitable boys who have not the slightest intention of getting married or being a father, and certainly have no means of supporting any resulting child, those girls will bear full responsibility for bringing up a child at a time when they are still children themselves. Their education, training and employment prospects will be severely curtailed for quite a few years.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. In my local area there is pressure on closing walk-in centres for family planning and birth control. Does she share my concern that a primary care model centred around GPs is all very well, but teenage girls need access quickly to advice? They are not likely to ring up a GP and wait a couple of days.

Angela Watkinson: I agree. Teenage girls need that advice, and they need proper warnings about all the risks that are involved before they embark on that course. They need to be encouraged to wait and get their education and their career prospects first, so that they and any children they might have in the future have a prospect of a good life in a married, settled family.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is most important to focus not just on sex education, but on sex and relationship education? One of the big failings in our schools is that it is not delivered by properly qualified people.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Lady is right. Sex is not just a casual leisure activity, because the outcomes are so long term and serious. The emotional relationships that attach to that are very important and should be stressed. Girls need to know that they are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of the outcome. Boys often disappear into the ether, and womenwe multi-tasking womencarry the consequences. Girls need to plan their lives with regard to how, when and with whom they will have children.
	A young woman recently attended my advice surgery. She had been in an unsuitable partnership, from which she had a 10-year-old child. Her violent, drug-taking ex-partner had access to her daughter. She had gone to court to ask whether that drug-taking partner could be prevented from taking her daughter in a car when he had access, because she felt that that would be unsafe. The judge took the view that provided that the man undertook not to take drugs for 24 hours before he had access, the child would be perfectly safe. I do not know how that could possibly be monitoredthe judge was of the opinion that the man's mother could monitor him on the day before he had access. A lot more thought needs to go into the decisions that come out of courts. It is certainly important that both parents should have access to children, but in the interests of child welfare, a child should not be driven around in a car by a drug-taking father just so that he can access his right to his child.
	Very early sexual activity can lead to, for example, chlamydia. Girls are often blissfully unaware that they have that infection until much later in life. When they have settled down, married and want to start a family, they find that they cannot do so and that the damage has already been done, and they need to be warned about such things.
	The biggest effect on equality of opportunity for girls is proper sex education, because it affects their quality of life, employment opportunities and career development.

Lynda Waltho: The hon. Lady has touched on an important debate that is currently taking place between health professionals, educational professions and parents. Will she enlighten me on what point in the education cycle such education would be suitable? I am talking about not only what one might describe as sexual plumbing, but relationship education. That is certainly a hot issue in my constituency at the moment.

Angela Watkinson: The specific age is best decided by professionals who are specialists in that field in both health and teaching. Girls need to be prepared before they get into difficulties, but they do not need lots of information that encourages experimentation. They are already bombarded with sexual images through the television, DVDs, videos and teen magazinesthere is pressure everywhere they look. There has been quite a lot of discussion lately about the style of clothing in shops for very young girls, which makes them look like mini-adults while they are still children. Those ideas need to be drawn together to protect young girls, so that they can get through their teens relatively unscathed before they step into the adult world.

Justine Greening: I am listening to my hon. Friend with interest. She has not mentioned peer-to-peer education. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) has mentioned relationships, and I think that we do not focus sufficiently in this country on peer-to-peer education. On issues such as drugs, sex and relationships, peer-to-peer education could be vital in getting through to young people as they are growing up, because it might help them to understand such matters from a perspective to which they can perhaps relate more readily.

Angela Watkinson: It is certainly the case that advice is often better digested from a peer when it relates to their personal experience. Sharing best practice and, probably, worst practice in schools through school councils and peer groups is likely to be more effective than advice dispensed by adults.
	When women get into the workplace, there are many pitfalls, mostly related to the fact that they have responsibility for children. Women with young children are bound to have to take time off work occasionally when the children become ill or something important is going on at school that they want to be involved in. They are therefore very reliant on child care, and it has to be good child care provided by somebody utterly reliable with whom the child is happy. That is not the easiest thing to find. When working women have child care problemscarers can get ill from time to timethat causes complications. Flexible working is needed, especially during school holidays. Often, two parents will need to have separate holidays to try to work in child care for their school age children. That affects the ability of the whole family to have a holiday together, which is extremely important.
	All those factors make life very complicated. Of course, women are multi-skilled. They do not work outside the home instead of inside the home, but outside it as well as inside it. They run the nuts and bolts of everyday life in the house, probably doing the garden and the decorating as well; they often do pretty much everything apart from maintaining the car. They take full responsibility for the children and their homework. How many Members have been lying in the bath and had a child knocking on the door saying, Mum, can you remember how to do quadratic equations?, or What's the French for so and so? There is not a moment's peace, and life becomes a bit like a treadmill, but women can do itwe are multi-skilled.

Lynda Waltho: I am slightly confused as to whether the hon. Lady is suggesting that flexible working should be available only for women. Would not many men also like to take care of their children and provide input into their lives?

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am using the word women because the debate is about women, but implied in that is the need for both parents to have access to flexible working. That does, though, produce problems for very small organisationsemployers who may have only a handful of employees. It is much more difficult for them to allow an employee to have flexible arrangements or to be away given that the absence of one person can have a serious impact on the running of the organisation, whereas a large organisation can absorb those special arrangements much more easily through job-sharing and flexible times. When we introduce legislation that makes life easier for employees, we must remember the very small employers on whom it has a much more serious impact than larger organisations.
	I should like to touch on the interrelated subject of midwifery. In my hospital trust area, I had three district general hospitals, one of whichHarold Wood hospital, where a large amount of midwifery services were providedrecently closed. We are left with a very nice new hospital in Romford called Queen's hospital and King George hospital in Seven Kings. The new hospital is in the middle of the trust area, but new mums from Upminster and Cranham have to go to the far end of the trust area, to King George hospital in Seven Kings, for midwifery services, unless they are a high-risk case. It is very important that midwifery services are local.
	Women also need ante-natal classes, which were stopped almost a year ago because of budgetary difficulties. Those classes not only provide medical treatment but have a social aspect, particularly for first-time mums who can compare notes with one another, and they need to be local. Some mothers have other children at school, and the difficulty of travelling several miles for a class often means that they will not go because it does not fit in with their other commitments. It is extremely worrying that there is a possibility of a second district general hospital closure in my trust area. That would leave us with only one. If that happensit is subject to a Fit for the Future consultationwe will have to identify at least one and possibly two local sites for midwife-led centres. If such centres are to deal with most routine midwifery cases, what arrangements will be in place when an emergency occurs and women have to be transported to a hospital?
	The Royal College of Midwives says that we have a national shortage of midwives and that we currently need another 10,000. The restructuring and reconfiguration of services to which I alluded will exacerbate that. I am therefore concerned about where the midwives will come from to serve all the pregnant mothers and new mums in my hospital trust area. That will be a high profile element of the Fit for the Future consultation.
	I want briefly to mention domestic violence. I pay tribute to the Havering women's refuge and its wonderful work in providing a safe haven for mothers and young children who have suffered domestic violence. It is a travesty of justice that the women and the children have to leave their home when the perpetrators of the violence remain there. The law needs to tackle the matter seriously.
	I have already mentioned access to children. Trying to balance the rights of the mother to protect her children with the legal rights of the father, whom the mother regards as unsuitable for her children to be with, is a constant problem. We need to do much more, especially to control fathers and partners who are violent in the home but present a different face in public. Many women who suffer domestic violence are frightened to say what is happening. They think that they will not be believed because the public face that their partners or husbands present is so pleasant and reasonable. They think that no one could possibly believe what is going on behind their closed doors.
	To improve status and opportunities for equality, we need first to change the nature of sex education so that girls are forewarned of all the risks of becoming sexually active too young and the possible long-term impact on their lives, education and career prospects. Secondly, we need to ensure that good midwifery services are available in all our hospital trust areasespecially mineso that child care is given the high status that it requires. It is an important service that should be of high quality. Working mothers should be able to rely on it so that they can go to work confident that their children are happy and safe while they are away. Thirdly, legislation on the employment of women should ensure that small employers as well as employees can have confidence.

Barbara Keeley: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased to speak on international women's day. I want to talk about women and work, some of the barriers that have already been overcome and those that still need to be overcome if we are to have a more equal society.
	I want to begin by describing my political journey to becoming a Member of Parliament. I had a professional career as an engineer and manager with IBM but I also realised the need for women to be involved in politics and in public life. It is interesting in the context of the debate to note that I began to feel that I could not pursue my career with IBM properly if I was also involved in politics. It seemed to be one or the other. In the mid-1990s, I was elected into local government in Trafford, and I managed the responsibility of being a councillor by becoming a self-employed consultant and adviser. It is interesting that it was difficult for me to pursue both my previous career and politics. Although Trafford had evening meetings, many councils in Greater Manchester had daytime meetings, which made it difficult for both men and women who worked to be councillors. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the Labour group on Trafford council at the time provided a good set of role models, as it had a female council leader and, later, a female deputy.
	In 2001, I first tried to be selected as an MP. To expand my CV, I thought that it was important to work nationally on health and social care issues. In 2004, I was selected as the candidate for Worsley constituency. In May 2005, I became one of the 26 women Labour MPs in what was, as several of my hon. Friends have mentioned, the first predominantly female new intake.
	When I first became involved in politics, when Labour was in opposition, the ideas discussed in meetings were the need for child care, support for families, better maternity leave and pay and even the right to paternity leave. We talked about equal pay a lot, and closing the gaps in pay and opportunities between women and men. Thinking back, I never had equal pay when I worked for IBM: I even trained men who were at a much more junior level than me and then discovered that they earned more than me. Certainly, equal pay was an issue, as was the minimum wage. Matters such as flexible working and support for carers were not even discussed. It seemed unlikely that we would make progress on many of those issues.
	Today, however, on international women's day, it must be said that we have made substantial progress within a decade. In May 1997, very soon after the Labour Government came into office, a national child care strategy was introduced. That was one of the most crucial contributions to the area of women and work. The number of child care places is now double the 1997 level, at 1.3 million. Most importantly, for women with young children, free places in nursery or early education are provided for three and four-year-olds.
	In April 1999, the national minimum wage was introduced, and two thirds of women benefited from that legislation. We should pay tribute to women Labour MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who fought and stayed up at night, as did male colleagues, to get that legislation through.
	In 1999, the Government also introduced the first ever national carers strategy. In 2002, the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act was introduced, which allowed positive measures to select more women candidates. That is relevant to the earlier debate that we had. The legislation was key, and most or all of the parties in the House will have to embrace such positive action if they want to make progress.
	In 2003, the child tax credit and working tax credit were introduced. Importantly, as flexibility is key for women in work, flexible working rights were introduced for parents of young or disabled children.
	The debate has touched on the issue of domestic violence, but I shall not talk about that in depth. However, the introduction of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was important. Across England and Wales, there are now 64 specialist domestic violence courts, including one in Salford. As a Salford MP, I intend to work with that court, see how it is doing and try to champion it, which is an important thing for women MPs to do.
	November 2004 also saw the introduction of the equality standard for sport to reduce inequalities in sport and physical activity. I took part in a debate on young people and sport in Westminster Hall last weekI was the only woman MP who did so, which is perhaps surprisingwhich explored the falling-off of participation in sport by young people, and particularly by girls and young women. That debate has now been dubbed the hair dryers debate, because we ended up discussing whether leisure facilities had hair dryers, and how off-putting young women found it if they could not dry their hair. Much the same issues are being explored by Dame Kelly Holmes, who is doing excellent work as national school sport champion.
	The Childcare Act 2006 was important, in that it was legislation devoted entirely to child care. Also important are the Women and Work Commission, on which there is a Government action planwe have just had a one year on updateand additional work to reduce the gender pay gap. Legislation introduced during the past decade is still going through Parliament: the Pensions Bill, for instance. That Bill is hugely important to women, particularly in reducing the number of years for which they must work to build up a state pension and in providing credits for caring as well as for child care. We should salute Barbara Castle for introducing child care credits, but caring is just as important as child care in women's lives.
	The commitment to sign the European convention on human trafficking is an important step, and we look forward to its ratification. April is a busy time this year: paid maternity leave is to be extended to nine months, the right to request flexible working is to be extended to carers of adults, and there is to be a public-sector gender equality duty.
	All that suggests that we have made great progress so far, but as others have said today, we still have much to do to ensure equality. It is now acknowledged that there will be wasted potential in the United Kingdom world of work if women's pay continues to be lower than men's and if there is less time for caring, causing more and continued stress for people with child-care or other caring responsibilities. As recent reports have pointed out, that waste of potential will continue unless the world of work changes.
	People need flexible working for a variety of purposes. They need it for parenting, or to care for older family members or a disabled child, but they need it for other reasons too. In some wards in my constituency, incomes are very low. We shall be able to help families and lone parents only if they can study, or train and receive skills qualifications, and move on. However, it is difficult for those who are working and have children to undertake courses or training.
	Women play an important role in volunteering and working in the community. When I was a parliamentary candidate, I noticed that all the tenants' or community groups to whom I spoke were run by women. I salute the women in my constituency who run community, tenants' and residents' groups. The estates in my community would not work as well as they do without the wonderful women who run them.
	The Minister said earlier that it should be possible for all jobs to be part-time unless there was a solid reason to the contrary. The demand for part-time and flexible working will continue to grow. Over the next few years and decades more women will be working, and the number of carers, or people with caring responsibilities, will grow as well. It has already reached 6 million, and is expected to reach at least 10 million by 2010 and increase further thereafter. People will work for longer as a result of what we are doing here: changes in the retirement age are already planned for women born in the 1950s, and there will be changes for both men and women as the legislation kicks in. I see all those factors as drivers of change in the demand for flexible working.
	Let me identify some other issues that are relevant to the world of women and work. I return to women's representation, because we ourselves are drivers of change in that women Members of Parliament put these matters on to the agenda. How are we doing? We rank 61st in terms of women's representation in politics, and when I think of the time I have spent striving to improve the lot of women in public life, I do not consider that very impressive.
	I was pleased, as other colleagues will have been, to be one of 40 Labour MPs elected in 2005. There were 26 women in that group. That was the first predominantly female in-take of MPs. My personal experience is that that makes a difference for us. It makes a difference in that we have a grouping. Some of our male colleagues have complained that sometimes they feel out of it and outnumbered. I think, Fine, I have experienced that for decades. You will develop some sympathy if you know what we experienced. I was the first woman MP for Worsley and the first woman MP to represent Wigan. Since then, I am happy to say that the two local authorities, Salford and Wigan, have both appointed women chief executives. Barbara Spicer and Joyce Redfearn are excellent women and I hope that their appointment makes a difference in those authorities. They must be exceptional people already because only 21 per cent. of local authority chief executives are women. There are, sadly, very few in the north-west region. We have some way to go in local government.
	Fifty-two per cent. of civil servants are women but only 26 per cent. of women in the civil service are in senior management jobs. That is up slightly on last year's figures. In Labour Members' meetings with Cabinet Ministers, we ask them to keep reporting back to us. It behoves women MPs to keep asking Cabinet Ministers what the position is on representation in their Departments.
	From April, a public sector duty on gender equality will come into force. Public bodies will have to look at ways of improving that. We know that, without action, it would take 20 years to achieve equality in the civil service at senior management level. We have debated the figures. Depressingly, whatever figures we take, it will take over 70 years to get a representative House of Commons. Clearly, we are moving faster on that in the Labour party, for reasons that are obvious, I think.
	Since I worked in the private sector, there has developed talk of glass ceilings and sticky floors. The first is defined as women being hindered in their progress to senior levels because of discrimination and/orthis is the important thing and perhaps where the debate is goingconditions of work at senior levels making it impossible for them to progress. I personally think that that is the thing to look at rather more. Sticky floors is defined as women being unable to progress from entry level jobs owing to the same attitudes or to the conditions of work. The Prime Minister visited ASDA recently and was told by a woman who was working part-time that she could not progress to being a manager because she could not take on shift workshe had child care commitments. It is clear that at every level that is an issue.
	A couple of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit on women holding senior management positions. I understand that the audit was just of women holding senior management positions in the FTSE 350 companies and not of women in all professions, as was said earlier.
	Comment has been made on that audit:
	This is a wake-up call for the FTSE 350 companies in Britain... they are creating problems for the future. Women are exiting corporate life.
	That is an issue. Interestingly, that audit, which is being reported today, is borne out by work done by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which found that thousands of women are missing from senior posts in business. We may need seriously to look at the reasons for that exodus. Lack of flexibility is being cited as one of the reasons. The commission recently said in one of its reports that flexible working is still seen
	as a deviation from the norm.
	That issue must be looked at.
	The smaller number of women in senior management positions is significant because those are the women who may reach the boards of their companies in years to come. It may be that they are entrepreneurial and are getting out to start their own businesses, but that is not going to help the boards of those companies in years to come when they are still all male, or predominantly male. In the same way as there is a journey to achieving election here as an MPin my case, local government and working on national health and social care issuesthere is a journey by women on the career ladders in British companies. It should concern us that women appear to be coming off that ladder before they get anywhere near the top.
	I have touched on the need for flexible working, and I want to conclude by running through some aspects of the caring role of women, which is also an important factor. Obviously both men and women are carers, but women are much more likely to care at the heavier end of the caring commitment. Women are more likely to care for a child with a disability while men are more likely to care for a spouse and they may do so after they have retired from work.
	Importantly, research has been done by the Future Foundation into a generation of women in their 40s and 50s who are now caught between working and the need to care for an elderly relative. It is estimated that that group will grow by 50 per cent. by 2020. Indeed, increased longevity will mean that many more people will have to become supercarers, who look after an elderly relative as well as caring for either children or grandchildren. It is estimated that there are about 2.5 million supercarers, but that with population changes that figure will rise to 3.9 million. Most are aged between 45 and 55, and 80 per cent. of them 2 millionare women.
	Unsurprisingly, supercarers are less likely to work 38 per cent. as compared to the national average of 45 per cent. of carers who work. So this dual care is a new factor that we have to start to look at. Of course, it is increasingly accepted that caring at the heavier end of commitment has an impact on the health and well-being of the carer. Research has, not surprisingly, shown that dual care has an even heavier impact on the life of the carer physically and mentally. Only 65 per cent. of dual carers are satisfied with their life compared with a national average of 75 per cent., and well-being among such carers is less than 60 per cent. compared with the national average of 65 per cent.
	We have made great strides in getting carers on to the Government's agenda. In 1999 the first national strategy for carers was introduced. Three Bills have been introduced by Labour Members that have given carers rights to assessment of their needs and rights in relation to employment, leisure time and educational opportunities. I introduced a ten-minute Billthe Identification and Support of Carers (Primary Health Care) Billlast year, and I hope to bring it back at some point.
	Local authorities have received carers grant to fund breaks for carers and other forms of support. Recently, the Government announced the new deal for carers, which included extra money for respite care, a national advice helpline and an expert carers programme. They are all welcome, but most important, at the same time the Government announced a review of the national carers strategy. That is a welcome development.
	I am acting this year as the parliamentary champion for carers week from 11 to 17 JuneI hope that hon. Members have it in their diaries. In the next few months, I hope that we can listen to carers and their needs as part of that review. We need to find further ways to meet their needs and tackle their issues, to give them the same opportunities to work, progress in work and undertake training and have the balance in their lives that we are striving to make possible for women throughout society.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just say to hon. Members who are still trying to catch my eye that the average length of speeches from the Back Benches is running at about 23 minutes. Four hon. Members wish to speak and the Minister wishes 20 to 25 minutes for the wind-up. Perhaps hon. Members will do the maths if they are trying to help each other.

Annette Brooke: I want to make a relatively brief speech on the contribution of microfinance in addressing poverty and in promoting women's empowerment. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on microfinance, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to share my enthusiasm for this important poverty reduction measure, which helps the very poorest in society.
	Many Members will have visited various projectsreference was made to such a visit earlierbut to set my speech in context, I want to describe one that I visited not so long ago in Kibera, which is the biggest slum in Africa, with more than 1 million people. I visited a market there where a very happy lady had a market stall that was crammed with sacks full of beans. One aspect of microfinance is taking out very small loans, often of less than 50. This lady started with such a loan and bought one bag of beans. She sold it, repaid her loan, made a profit and bought more beans. By the time that I visited the market stall, she had at least 20 bags of beans. Her profit is clearly growing, and it is making an enormous contribution to her family.
	In recognition of international women's day and the important link between women's empowerment and microfinance, I tabled early day motion 1036, which focuses on microfinance in developing countries. I ask Members who support this enabling approach to poverty reduction to consider signing it today, before it is too late. Today's debate is of course focused on the UK, and just yesterday, I heard a presentation by a microfinance institution in this country, so I thought this a marvellous opportunity to spread the word and highlight the potential for more support for such institutions in our own country.
	The presentation was given at a meeting hosted jointly by the all-party parliamentary groups on microfinance and on sex equality, the chair of the latter being the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). We focused on microfinance's actual and potential impact in promoting gender equality, and we heard about examples of microfinance in Asia and Africaand in the east end of London.
	Microfinance is the provision of financial services to those who are traditionally excluded because of their economic position in society. Such services include providing small collateral-free loans to set up a business, providing access to saving accounts, remittances and insurance, and business support and training. It is essentially a hand-up, rather than a hand-out, approach to development, and is widely held to promote women's empowerment. It is used primarily by women; in fact, 86 per cent. of the 113 million clients worldwide are women. Access to financial services is therefore having a real impact on the lives of women and their families, and on local communities across the world. Impoverished people, particularly women, are able to overcome poverty through the provision of credit to build up income-generating activities.
	Women are more likely than men to spend income directly on the family. I asked women in several different African countries what difference microfinance had made to their lives. They said that it had provided them with enough food and shelter, but they also said, It enables me to keep my children at school for longer. That is so important, and there are also various health spin-offs. Research shows that this is as true in the UK as anywhere else in the world.
	The UK institution that I learned about yesterday is called Street Cred. It is a microcredit project in east London that links access to finance with tailored business support, and it is delivered through a peer group model adapted from the Grameen bank, in Bangladesh. It was set up in 1999 by Quaker Social Action, a regeneration charity that is working with communities in the east end.
	The Grameen bank in Bangladesh was set up by Muhammad Yunus, and we celebrated greatly when he won the Nobel peace prize last year for his contribution to microfinance. Muhammad Yunus recognised that women wishing to start a small business were being denied that opportunity because of a lack of accessible and affordable credit.
	The peer group model used by Street Cred in our own east end involves setting up small groups or borrowing circles, with four or so members. When a group member applies for a loan, the other members of the group participate in approving the application. If one client does not repay, no more loans are issued to the group, so there is much group pressure to repay. Solutions are often found through sharing knowledge and experience in the group. Street Cred offers a great deal of business support. Its experience shows that the impact of being in an all-women environment affects their ability to take risks, to share and to flourish. That is why it is an all-women project.
	We have heard about barriers this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned that women make up only 14 per cent. of business owners in the UK. They face significant barriers, somebut not allof which can be overcome quite simply. We have spoken a lot about child care and caring responsibilities. Those are complex barriers and we need to do so much more to address them. But lack of confidence and business knowledge are other barriers, as are lack of access to affordable finance and feeling excluded from mainstream business support services.
	In certain circumstances, it is recognised that women are more fearful of debt than men. Women in this country are twice as likely to live in poverty as men and have more to risk by coming off benefits. We have spoken a lot today about glass ceilings, but I wish to redress the balance slightly by considering the position of the very poorest in our community.

Lorely Burt: I am aware of several microfinance projects. Does my hon. Friend agree that such projects, in addition to empowering women, can be really useful in alleviating the social exclusion suffered by ethnic minorities? Several of the projects that I know of are compliant with sharia law, so Muslim women are able to come out of what can be a restricted environment to start trading in their own way. That empowers them and brings them out into society.

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. That is exactly what happens in the east end, where the project is working with ethnic minority groups. It is using the Grameen model, and of course some of the women are from Bangladesh. That project is working towards overcoming the sharia law aspect in terms of interest and profit. Although interest is paid, it is paid into a pot that is then lent again and the institution is basically non-profit making.
	Microcredit reverses conventional banking practice by removing the need for collateral and creating a banker system based on mutual trust, accountability and participation. It works on the basis that the bank should go to the borrowers, not the other way round. Interest is charged on the loan and used to help other women. The rates of interestat a typical annual percentage rate of 19 per cent.are far lower than rates at which someone who is impoverished could hope to borrow from any other source, if any were available.
	The repayment rates are remarkable. It is perhaps a feature of the women who repay, but the group support is also vital. In projects that I have seen overseas, the loans have been very small, 20 or 50, but in Street Cred a typical first loan is for about 500. There is still pressure to repay the loan in a relatively short time, but I think that that adds to the project's success.
	Interestingly, only 39 per cent. of women who join a borrowing circle actually take on a loan. The others benefit from one-to-one support and business help and are then able to access other sources of finance. A succession of loans is made in about 12 per cent. of cases, but the important point is that the people involved get off to a start and are then able to enter the main banking system. Microfinance deserves a lot more support because it offers a way to tackle financial exclusion in our affluent society.
	I love stories about microfinance. They bring the subject to life, so I shall tell one very quickly. Karen Winchester founded Diveen's Cuisine, a Caribbean restaurant and catering business in Walthamstow. At first, she had difficulty getting information and support, and many of the places that she approached were concerned that she had no experience of running her own business or a restaurant, and no collateral to access credit.
	Ms Winchester found a leaflet about Street Cred and joined a borrowing circle in 2002. She attended a number of business workshops and had one-to-one meetings, and began her business by providing catering for events. Later, she opened her restaurant. Her first loan was used to purchase catering equipment and, when she paid that back, she took out another one to improve the restaurant. She found that she was able to pay the loans back without coming under the same pressure that she would have experienced with a bank. Sometimes during the week, she uses her restaurant to host her borrowing circlean example of how good practice can be spread.
	Time is short, so I must not indulge in giving the House more examples. I shall end by quoting a Gracious Ordinance that the Honourable Lords of the Royal Courts of Justice, the highest court in England, made in 1871. They said:
	No loans to any woman whatsoever.
	That makes it clear that they thought that lending to women was a bad idea.
	We have made some progress since then, but it is important that we appreciate that microfinance is good for women. In addition, women are good for microfinance internationally and, as we celebrate international women's day, we should remember the poorest women across the world. However, we must not forget the women in our society, for whom relative poverty can be very hard to overcome.

Lynda Waltho: First, may I apologise for leaving during the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)? That was no reflection on her speech, but I needed to attend a Committee sitting upstairs. Moreover, I apologise to hon. Members of all parties for missing what I am sure were important contributions.
	I am pleased to be called to speak on international women's day, especially as its theme is Ending Impunity For Violence Against Women And Girls. I am also proud to support the cross-party early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), which highlights the fact that violence against women is the most common, but least punished, crime across the world.
	Domestic violence is the most common form of abuse of women worldwide. It does not respect country, race, education, class or religion, and it is a problem that I want to highlight further. We have heard already that domestic violence affects one women in four in the UK, and that an average of two women every week die at the hands of violent partners. Much has been done to address the problem over the past 10 years, through improving the criminal justice system and raising awareness.
	Tackling domestic violence is truly an equality issue, for how will women ever achieve equality when 25 per cent. of women living in the UK suffer violence at home? The perpetrators of domestic violence take control of their victims. They rob a woman of her dignity, self-respect and confidence. Sometimes they take away her friends or children and, in extreme cases, her life. It affects every part of a woman's lifeher children, her physical and mental health, and her prospects. For some women who suffer domestic violence, often on a daily basis, finding the strength to report the abuse can take years. Some estimates indicate that a woman will suffer up to 34 attacks before making an official report. With the lack of stability in their lives and the constant threat of violence, it becomes impossible for women even to think about a career structure for themselves or to plan a stable future for their children. Domestic violence prevents millions of women from achieving equality; it robs them of their independence and of control over their own lives.
	The economic arguments are compelling. Research by Sylvia Walby of the university of Leeds into the cost of domestic violence shows that the total cost to services amounts to 3.1 billion, while the loss to the economy is 2.7 billion. The human and emotional cost is estimated at more than 17 billion a year. I do not deny that definite progress on dealing with the issue has been made over the past 10 years. Domestic violence accounts for 15 per cent. of violent crime in the UKdown from 25 per cent. Although I welcome that progress, Members will agree that the statistic is still too high.
	I welcomed the announcement on Monday of a cash boost of nearly 2 million to double the number of local multi-agency domestic violence action teams MARACswhich involve key agencies. The police, the probation, education, health and housing services and the voluntary sector work together on cases, which means that they can build up a comprehensive picture of the abuse and develop the programme of action that best supports and protects a domestic violence victim and their family. That multi-agency initiative is fantastic, and is at last an example of real joined-up work across departments. I hope that it will give victims much more comprehensive support than the rather piecemeal help that some women have received.
	As my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, the Government have provided 3 million to seed-fund independent domestic violence advisersIDVAs. In effect, such advisers walk beside the victim throughout the process, providing a single point of contact both inside and outside the criminal justice system for the duration of the case, and sometimes afterwards. Such services are the key to providing continuing support for the victim to make sure that she does not drop out halfway through the process.
	Although I welcome both those initiatives, they need to be rolled out on a larger scale if they are to have a significant effect on domestic violence. It is no good planning excellent initiatives unless we put them into practice, so I welcome my Government's focus on those programmes.
	The introduction of specialist domestic violence courts, one of which serves my constituency and sits every week, is a great step forward. Such courts play an important role in reducing reoffending and in decreasing the number of victims who drop out of the process, to which I referred earlier. As it is so hard for women to report domestic violence initially, it is vital that they trust and believe in our criminal justice system. They must be able to feel that if they come forward justice will be done and they will be properly supported throughout the process. Early evidence shows that in some areas of the country reoffending rates have been cut by between 50 and 90 per cent. and, importantly, that the drop-out rate of victims during the prosecution process has gone down significantly.
	A further important aspect of the issue is support for children of victims of domestic violence. In a survey of mothers who had experienced domestic violence, 99 per cent. said that their children had seen them crying because of the violence, 73 per cent. said that their children had witnessed violent incidents and 10 per cent. had been sexually abused in front of their children. Unfortunately, domestic violence in families does not stop with the mother; 27 per cent. of mothers said their violent partner had also physically assaulted their children. Indeed, that is often the trigger for many women to report the abuse. There can be wide-reaching short and long-term effects on the childrenaffecting their health, their school work, their confidence and their future.
	A fantastic project in my constituency aims to deal with those after-effects and is already seeing positive results. The My Space, My Time project is supported by Barnardo's and run by a dynamic young woman, Michele Clark. She provides a service in the Dudley borough to children and young people between the ages of five and 13 who have been affected by domestic violence. Her work to unpick what the children have seen is absolutely vital and helps to deal with any aggressive learned behaviour as a result of exposure to such violence. Michelle helps the children to express their feelings about what they experienced through play, drawings, talking and acting. If the learned behaviour is not challenged, it will obviously have a detrimental effect on the child's development and will add to the possibility of social exclusion or of the cycle continuing.
	Michelle also provides advice to women who are suffering or have suffered domestic violence about safety planning for their children. She is having a lot of success with the children, but tells me that she is overwhelmed with work. So many women and children across the borough need the support that she can offer that she needs more staff, but sustained funding is not available. To return to my previous point, if we are to undo the damage caused to women and children by domestic violence, projects such as that must be fundedand funded well.
	The Sanctuary project recently announced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governmenta scheme to install safe rooms in homescan help in particular cases and has been used with success across the country. I would really like to see it rolled out in Dudley. The room features strong windows, door locks and anti-arson letter boxes so that the victim can stay in her home and does not have to move out, taking her children and her belongings in a plastic bag. She does not have to uproot the children from all that is stable in their lives. Although such safe rooms do not tackle the causes of domestic violence or punish the perpetrator, they can allow women to feel safer in their own homesthey do not have to upset their whole life. There are already examples of these safe rooms saving women's lives.
	To complete the jigsaw, much more work must be done with young men and perpetrators of domestic violence. Punishing the perpetrators is not enough: their behaviour patterns need to be modified and their attitudes changed. They must acknowledge and be able to see the effect that their behaviour is having on their families.
	I welcome those innovative ideas, which have worked across the country, and I hope to see many more implemented in Dudley. I am saddened to say, however, that unless significant amounts of sustainable funding are ploughed into making these ideas a reality, they will remain just thatideas.
	There are so many areas where we could be doing more work to tackle domestic violence that I cannot possibly go into them all. They range from finding more ways to reach and support pregnant women30 per cent. of domestic violence starts during pregnancy and existing violence often escalatesto providing enough funding for hostels and refuges so that women who have to escape domestic violence have somewhere safe to go.
	Our commitment to tackling domestic violence must be far reaching and it must be sustained. It is no good simply acknowledging the scale of the problem and providing funding for projects only here and there. The Government and local authorities must continue to put their money where their mouths are and they really must continue to follow through. I am proud of how far we have come in tackling domestic violence over the past 10 years, but I am aware that we need to do a lot more. Domestic violence perpetuates inequality by degrading, isolating and controlling women, and until we eradicate it from our society we will never have true equality.

Fiona Mactaggart: I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about three aspects of violence against women: forced marriage, treatment of women in prison, and prostitution. I am very glad that the Prime Minister's announcement on forced marriage legislation means that I do not need to speak about the first aspect. On prisons, Baroness Corston's report is forthcoming shortly, so I will leave that important debate until it is published. I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) a chance to contribute, so I shall speak briefly about the issue of prostitution.
	Members will know that when I was a Minister I had the privilege of launching the Government's strategy on prostitution. In doing so, I changed the policy for zones of tolerance of prostitution that had been outlined in a consultation document to one that focused much more on the safety of the women and dealing with the men who paid for sex. The evidence shows that that was the right approach. The countries that have licensed or regulated prostitution have seen a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry. There has been a huge increase in people trafficking and child prostitution, and indications of an increase in violence against women.
	I want the Government to go further than I was able to persuade them to go. I want them to look at Sweden, which introduced legislation that, first, criminalises the buying of sex, secondly, decriminalises the selling of sex and, thirdly, provides proper support services to help women to escape from the capture that is prostitution. In just five years, Sweden has dramatically reduced the number of its women in prostitution. In the capital city of Stockholm, the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds and the number of men paying for sex has been reduced by 80 per cent. In addition, the number of foreign women being trafficked into Sweden has fallen massively. The Swedish Government estimate that in the past few years only 200 to 400 women and girls have been trafficked into Swedena figure that is negligible compared with the 15,000 to 17,000 women a year who are sex trafficked into neighbouring Finland.
	The big trick in Sweden was not just to pass the two laws, but to provide the support that women need to leave prostitution. Things did not start working until the police were trained. The problem about an effective prostitution strategy is that it depends on the commitment of the police. When the police were trained about the new powers to help women to leave prostitution, there was a massive transformation. The police understood that prostitution is a form of male violence against women, where the exploiter or buyer should be punished and the victim or prostitute needs to be helped. They started to put women into projects to reduce the level of drug abuse among women, reduce the number of women involved in prostitution, and reduce the damage to their children.
	Among our police forces, there is a patchy approach to tackling prostitution. Of the 629 successful prosecutions for kerb crawling in Britain, Clevelandone of our smallest police forceswas responsible for 106. Let me praise Cleveland police force. It has the sense not only to prosecute men who pay for sex, but to arrange with the magistrates courts to deal with all the prosecutions on one day and with the local newspaper to publicise the names and addresses of the men involved. As a result, very few of the men come from Cleveland. The men in that area know what happens.
	Our policy is only three quarters of the way towards the policy that we need. We ought to adopt the policy that Sweden has adopted. Even within the framework of the present prostitution policy, an enormous difference can be made simply by the way in which local police forces choose to police prostitution and paying for sex. I cannot find any successful prosecutions for kerb crawling from Thames Valley. As a Thames Valley MP, I hope that that is a failure in the statistics. There are no cautions for kerb crawling either.
	In a funny way, I am not surprised. In order to get better policing of prostitution in my constituency, I had to persuade local businesses to raise 16,000 for a camera in the area where prostitution affects Slough. The local businesses were happy to do that. Slough council, unfortunately, was not. Our police said, Yes, it's priority, but not enough of one. Luckily, the council offered us a slot to watch the camera, so it can have an effect. When local communities are besiegedit feels like thatby prostitution, when people have to take their children to school via drug litter, and when they bring their children back from Brownies and see men and women having sex in people's back gardens, they cannot bear it. They feel that their home is not their home, and we have a responsibility to tackle that.
	When I introduced the Government's policy, I was attacked for including a proposal to ensure that if two women worked together in a flat, it would not be treated as a brothel, and I am unashamed of that. It is right to make the penalty for brothel-keeping 14 years in prison, but two women who are prostituting themselves together should not be sent to prison for 14 years. I ask the media not to take cheap shots, but instead to let us make sure that between us we have a policy that keeps women who are involved in prostitution safer. Last year in Ipswich we had a horrible reminder of how dangerous the profession is. Let us not fall for the myth that it is the oldest profession, and that we will always have to live with it, because we can get rid of it. The way to do that is to target the men who pay for sex and who are responsible for violence against women.

Joan Ruddock: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and so many other colleagues who have spoken.
	In 1997, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I had the great privilege of becoming the first Ministers with responsibility for women in the country. Our agenda was to develop a child care strategy, family-friendly working, and action on violence against women. I am glad to say that the agenda survived our departure, and that so many of the successes in those policy areas have been mentioned today.
	We also said that we would look into the issue of process. We wanted to ensure the mainstreaming of gender in every Department, and we wanted equality of gender in public appointments, so I decided to take a little survey last week. I acknowledge that it is much more difficult to set up those processes than to check on many of the policies of which we have spoken and on the Government's good delivery. Discrimination against women is often invisible, and people who exercise authority over others often do not know that they are discriminating. Indeed, women may not realise that they are subject to discrimination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said.
	I asked Departments about their processes, because collecting statistics and taking specific steps to analyse gender impacts is critical to the proper delivery of equality. I asked Departments to tell me about their gender strategy, and I am sorry to say that two Departmentsthe Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsfailed to reply. All others did, but no Department has a gender strategy. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality who are on the Front Bench will take that point back to their discussion groups, because there is much more work to be done. That is not to diminish in any way the brilliant work that has already been done.
	When I asked Departments whether they had a gender equality action plan, the majority of Departments said either that they did, or that they were developing one and that they would certainly have it in place by the deadline, which is 30 April. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Front Bench, because their answers were exemplary. I wanted to share with the House all that the Departments were doing, because it is so important and interesting. People rarely know that such work is going on, or the extent to which civil servants are committed to advancing gender equality. The Departments varied in what they said, but, looking at the clock, I see that I do not have the opportunity to tell the House what they said. Some were much more expansive than others, and some clearly have very good practice in consulting widely throughout their Departmentfor example, some involve stakeholders and have women's networksand in bringing everything together. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were able to tell me that they had got ahead and were developing strategies and publishing documents even last year, before the requirement was in place.
	I also took the trouble to consider public appointments. When the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I began our jobs as Ministers with responsibility for women, we looked for a commitment to ensure that 50 per cent. of appointments were women. Departments gave that commitment, and they have been working towards meeting it ever since. The Department for Education and Skills is the closest, with 44.8 per cent. of public appointments made by Ministers in that Department going to women. Sadly, four Departments have made such appointments at a rate of below 25 per cent. and a couple of them have slipped back: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development.
	Let me say a few words about DFID, as it is the Department that I have come to know best in my capacity as a member of the International Development Committee. The first question that I asked the Secretary of State when I became a member of the Committee was whether there was a gender strategy. There was not. The Department said that it would develop one. It has been making progress, and I understand that a document on that was either published yesterday or will be published today. Half of the senior civil servants in that Department are women.  [Interruption] The Minister for Women and Equality is showing me that she has a copy of that document with her; I have not got mine yet. However, we found that of 28 appearances before the Committee, only seven were by women. Therefore, although that Department has women in senior positions, it is not sending them to our Committee. It is crucial that DFID has gender equality strategies, because the women of the developing countries of the world and of the very poorest countries are suffering the most.
	Let me conclude by telling an anecdote. I have recently returned from Ethiopia. Women are running every project in water and sanitation in Ethiopia. One women's group had built a lot of shower cubicles and latrines which they were going to have primarily for women, but they suddenly realised that they could give half of them to the men. They charged the men for their use, and they set up a tea stall alongside. Women display such entrepreneurship and initiative throughout the worldin our communities, and particularly in developing countries.

Meg Munn: This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate and I pay tribute to all Members who have taken part. It is an honour to follow in the line of previous Ministers for Women and to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) for her opening speech. We both entered the House in 2001 and Members might be surprised to learn that we used to be mistaken for each otherthat might still be the case so far as I know. However, no one could mistake my hon. and learned Friend's commitment to fighting for women's rights, which she has done consistently both before and since entering the House.
	I also want briefly to mention that today Labour women MPs invited to the House some of their women community champions so that they could see what we do. Some of them said that they were inspired by meeting women MPs and spending some time here to think about getting involved by participating in either local or central Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) talked about that.
	Today is an historic day for this House. Some might not have noticed, but earlier my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House issued a statement outlining that from the next Session of Parliament gender-neutral drafting of legislation will be used for new Bills that are introduced. I am pleased that we are able to announce that on international women's day, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend took up that suggestion, following a conversation that took place with him. That practice will end drafting that reinforces gender stereotypes. It will also bring this House into line with practices adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and with those of other English-speaking countries.
	Several Members raised the issue of prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) gave a detailed and knowledgeable speech on that, and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) also talked about it. The Government are well aware that there are significant issues in respect of women in prison, which is why Baroness Scotland asked Baroness Corston to complete an inquiry into that. We look forward to receiving that report shortly.
	Unsurprisingly, Members raised a range of issues to do with violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made a speech, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done in developing the strategy on prostitution. I have had the opportunity to visit Sweden and to learn directly about the issues that are being taken up there. I understand what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the commitment of the police force. I assure her that our inter-ministerial group that looks into this issue is keen to learn from best practice, wherever that comes from. The issue of the Cleveland police force has been discussed. Importantly, my hon. Friend highlighted the role of men in relation to the issue. It is high time that we talked a great deal more about that. That leads to the point that she rightly made. In the year that we are commemorating the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, horrific trafficking in human beings still takes place. We need to tackle that and deal with all the causes, ranging from poverty in the countries from which those people come, on which action is being taken by DFID, to the behaviour of men in this country.
	On forced marriages, hon. Members welcomed the Government's statement this week. It is important to remember that even though there is not a specific offence of forced marriage, a range of crimes are committed now by people who force women into marriage. Hon. Members should be assured that we take the matter extremely seriously.
	Domestic violence was covered in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho). It was enormously interesting to hear her remarks. I agree that it is important for us to continue to devote substantial resources to the problem. We have spent 6.7 million over the past three years improving services for victims, and there was an announcement this week of almost 2 million for multi-agency risk assessment conferences. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that where we have started to see significant successes emerge from the assessment process and the domestic violence courts, those should be rolled out further so that the benefits are felt throughout the country. My hon. Friend will know that the issue of children witnessing domestic violence is one of the causes of significant harm as described in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, so the link has been recognised.
	Sanctuary schemes are important in making some women safe, although they are not appropriate for all women. We issued guidance in December last year on the right way to go about setting up such schemes. Although there is a cost involved in making a room safe, that cost is significantly less than it can be to re-house women and their children, and the scheme overcomes the problems that women would face as a result of their children changing schools and as a result of moving away from their neighbourhoods and support centres. We encourage local authorities to consider establishing sanctuary schemes and to see how, by saving on their homelessness budget, they could use their existing resources to make women safer in their own homes.
	Hon. Members raised the concerning matter of the low conviction rate for rape. The hon. Member for Solihull asked why there seemed to be a significant change in the rate. My hon. and learned Friend informs me that 10 years ago the figure for conviction was 7.3 per cent., much the same as it is at present. There was a higher conviction rate in the 1980s, but in 1992 marital rape was made a crime, and more women who were raped in longer-term relationships started to complain. Those offences have been harder to prove than stranger rape. Clearly, there is still a great deal to be done in that area, and Ministers continue to work on it across Government.
	Many issues relating to women in the workplace were highlighted. There was a heartfelt plea from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) to make this place more family-friendly. Her plea rightly received the support of many other hon. Members. The hon. Lady sent me a note to say that she has left to be with her son on his fifth birthday. I am sure nobody minds that in order to do so, she has exercised the flexibility that we should have.
	The pay gap is an important topic. The Women and Work Commission, which reported to the Prime Minister last year, produced a range of recommendations for tackling the many causes of that gap. Skills and part-time working are key issues. We have identified over 100 exemplar employers who operate a range of measures to encourage more women into areas of work where there are few women, such as engineering, and to support women working for them now.
	We have seen some positive figures: since we introduced the right to request flexible working, the number of women who change their employer when they return from maternity leave has halved. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, that is still one in five women, but I say that that is still progress.
	We need to examine the introduction of a culture of greater flexibility by our companies, because the issue involves not only those with small children, but, from April, those who are caring for adults. We want to develop a culture that recognises that, where possibleit is clearly not possible in all rolesflexibility should be offered, because it often increases staff retention, which therefore cuts recruitment costs. Furthermore, people tend to be committed to employers who offer them the ability to combine work with family life.
	We rightly heard a great deal about entrepreneurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North talked about the need to grow businesses. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made an important and interesting contribution, in which she talked about how micro-finance could help women develop their own businesses. We also need to keep our eye on the problems that women have in accessing finance from the main sources and do more work on that issue.
	The hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Basingstoke talked about what we are doing to ensure that women have the skills to move out of lower-paid jobs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) described as sticky floors. We have introduced various initiatives, including the new deal for lone parents, the train to gain programme and a women in work sector pathway initiative, which will provide 10 million over two years from 2006 for sector skills councils. That money will be matched by employers to develop and test new recruitment and career pathways, which will benefit more than 10,000 women.
	A number of other issues have been raised, including infertility, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). The issues are complex, and a number of concerns have come to light about fertility services around the country. Because of the complexity of the issues, those points should be responded to by the relevant Health Minister, and I will seek to obtain an appropriate response to those concerns.
	We spent some time discussing representation, which is, perhaps, unsurprising given that it is close to all our hearts. I will not enter into the earlier banter and debate, but it is clearly important that the Government have implemented the means by which political parties, if they choose to do so, can take measures that involve positive discrimination in order to encourage a greater gender balance. The Labour party enacted that legislation in 2002, which led to 65 per cent. of new Labour MPs at the last election being women. We want to see more women on both sides of the House.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at the barriers for women in local government, which is an enormously important area. We are increasingly looking at more devolution towards local government, and we want to ensure that there is proper representation for not only women, but people from black and minority ethnic groups. That work will be ongoing, and hopefully it will give us more ideas about how local government can examine reforming itself in order to improve representation.
	Several hon. Members discussed maternity services. Our commitment is that by 2009 all women will have choice in where and how they have their baby. We want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy and for that support to be linked closely to other services that will be provided in children's centres. Our overarching aim is to improve the quality of services, safety and outcomes for all women. That requires skilled maternity professionals with the required level of experience and training. We believe that it is right that decisions about service reconfiguration are for local NHS organisations to make for themselves.
	International women's day is an opportunity not only to celebrate the progress made by women but to reflect on what still needs to be done. We have heard about hon. Members' experiences not only in this country but abroad, about the need to tackle as well as to break through the glass ceiling and about women in lower-paid jobs and in poverty. We should never forget that issues related to women in poverty have an impact on our targetyes, an ambitious target, but one that we should all supportof lifting children out of poverty, because if women earn what they should be earning, that will improve the income of the family and lift more women and children out of poverty.
	Fifty per cent. of women in part-time work are working below their skill level and have the ability to do better, and another 30 per cent. would take on training in order to do higher-paid, higher-quality jobs if they had that opportunity. It is enormously important to tackle that issue, which has been focused on in the work of the Women and Work Commission. As we agreed, we will respond to its report later this month.
	Closing the pay gap is not the work of one year or even a few yearsit is a much longer job given the occupational segregation that girls and women learn from an early age. Nevertheless, I think that hon. Members will see that it is being taken seriously not only by the Government but, importantly, by a whole range of organisations in the public and private sectors that are putting in place measures to ensure that women can continue to work in their organisations either full-time, with the flexibility that supports their needs.
	As my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) rightly noted, next month the ground-breaking gender equality duty will come into force. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford found reticence among those responding to her questions because Departments are in the process of developing further what they have already done to ensure that they comply with this important piece of legislation. Public authorities will need to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, both in the services they provide and in their employment practices.
	The duty is not just about service delivery, although that is enormously importantit puts equality between men and women at the heart of our public services, ensuring that they are delivered so as to meet the needs of men and of women. It also means that public authorities must, in terms of their employment practices, consider any causes of a gender pay gap and any impediments to progress through the career grades for women members of their staff. If enacted properlythere is a role for monitoring thatit should prove to be ground-breaking and make a huge difference to how our public services are delivered. It demonstrates, along with many other measures that are being taken by this Government, that we will continue to pursue equality.
	We are all grateful to the men and women who have fought for equality and social justice in the past, and we are committed to continuing that fight.

Frank Roy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

Banking Provision (Higham Ferrers)

Peter Bone: I wish to present a petition, which is based on the fact that a major town in my constituency is to lose its only surviving bank The petition was organised through the hard work of our excellent councillors in Higham FerrersCouncillor Anna Sauntson, Councillor Barry Sauntson, Councillor Pam Whiting and County Councillor Derek Lawson.
	The petition states:
	Higham Ferrers is a fast expanding town and is developing even further as part of the Government's Milton Keynes and South Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy.
	Yet the last bank in the area is proposed to be closed soon, which will be a significant loss of amenity, especially for the vulnerable, disabled and the elderly.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to investigate the circumstances surrounding the proposed closure of the bank with a view to either:1. keeping the existing bank open; or 2. providing alternative banking provision.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING (POOLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

Robert Syms: It is not the first time that I have raised the subject of funding and finance in Poole, and I suspect that it will not be the last. The problems will not go away and I want to make a case for a better deal for Poole.
	It is great to have the support of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has changed her plans to be here. I do not know whether she will intervene or catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for a few minutes later, but the important thing is that we both feel strongly about the way in which Poole is funded.
	Poole council is a good council. High quality people, from all parties, serve on it and it attracts high quality officers. I have always been impressed by the way in which they conduct their business. The council has been under the control of different parties but I have never had any great concerns about it. Matters have always been properly debated and efficiently dispatched.
	However, life is becoming harder in Poole because the grant settlements that we have received over a series of years put great pressure on the local authority. Poole is a beautiful place. It is also a place of extreme contrasts. Parts of it have some of the highest house prices in the country yet several wards are in the worst 25 per cent. for deprivation. One has to envisage some of the contrasts in London to appreciate what life is like in Poole.
	Poole receives only 169 per head of Government fundingit is in the floor. That is less than 50 per cent. of the average figure for unitary authorities. Although council tax in band D is slightly lower than the averagein 2006-07, it was 1,233that was achieved by superhuman efforts by the local authority, which placed a high priority on keeping council tax down. We have many retired people who are on fixed incomes and, Poole being in the west country, salaries are not especially high. Council tax is therefore a live issue for our constituents.
	In 2007-08, the council's net budget requirement was 84.542 million, of which 61.333 million72 per cent.was raised from council tax. Our funding from Government was 23.209 million27 per cent.through the general funding formula. The balance between Government support and locally generated council tax leads to a feeling of unfairness about the system of grant distribution.
	Since 2003, average unitary authority funding per head has increased by 114 but only by 44 in Poole. We therefore feel not only disadvantaged by being towards the bottom of the league tablesthough nobody would expect us to be at the topbut that we are falling behind other authorities because of the operation of the funding formula.
	I want to make a specific point. I was here when the Minister for Local Government made his announcement about the grant settlement. He said that no authority would be below 2.7 per cent. The local authority in Poole feels that its grant in the current year has gone up by only about 1.7 per cent. It says that revenue support grant was 22.82 million in 2006-07 and 23.209 million in the current year, which represents an increase of only 1.6 per cent. I understand that there has been some correspondence and debate. Will the Minister point out where the discrepancy lies, as there is a feeling that we are missing out on 1 per cent. of that grant235,000, I thinkwhich would make some difference?
	In December 2004, the Minister for Local Government announced that he had overhauled the system used to distribute formula grant to local authorities and increased the level of resource equalisation. That has had a substantial detrimental effect on authorities such as Poole, which has high house prices and is assessed as having a relatively greater ability to raise council tax locally. In previous conversations, I think that he acknowledged that that element in the formula is one of the factors that disadvantages Poole.
	Resource equalisation was intended to reflect the higher need for spending in authorities that have a weak tax base. However, the difficulty is determining the extent to which higher spending is genuinely the result of higher need, or whether it is attributed to factors that should not be compensated for through the grant system, such as higher levels of service or demand for discretionary services. Increased resource equalisation would appear unfair to lower-spending authorities, where local voters favour lower taxation over a higher service level. That is a key issue for people in Poole.
	If there is to be a high level of resource equalisation, the targeting of significant amounts of direct Government funding to deprived and declining areas could also be brought into the resource equalisation system. Without doing that, areas such as Poole, who miss out on much funding, will consider it unfair.
	Poole acknowledges that it has received funding to support the regeneration project in the town. One of the main capital projects is the building of a second bridge in the harbour. There is also a building schools for the future project and, more recently, a local authority business grant has been received.

Annette Brooke: Poole has recently benefited from several extra grants, which have helped the town enormously. The underlying problem, however, is the funding formula for Poole. I was a councillor for many years, and I know that the case for fair funding has been made for a long time. Why cannot the system be more transparent so that the people of Poole can understand why it is funded as it is in relation to other places? Given the number of times that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I have raised the subject of the high ratio of house prices to wages, is there any prospect of daylight in any subsequent reformulations for the financial settlement?

Robert Syms: The hon. Lady makes some good points. The capital projects have helped Poole, but they are relatively small compared with those in some authorities.
	When compared with household income, house prices are very high in Poole: the ratio is 5.44:1. That places Poole in the top 10 per cent. of the most costly places to live, based on households aged 20 to 39, among 407 other local authorities. Our house prices are probably more aligned with those in the south-east of England, but our wages are more aligned with those in the south-west, which creates a problem.
	Overall unemployment is low at 3.4 per cent., and that impacts on the inability to recruit locally. In addition, recruitment to low-wage jobs is made more difficult when house prices in the area are so high. The average selling price for a house in Poole in the fourth quarter of 2006 was 266,368. The difficulties of recruitment are compounded by the loss of 20 to 29-year-olds within the population in recent years. It is terribly difficult for young people to get on the housing ladder in Poole.
	The cost of adult care in Poole is also significantly above the unitary authority average. In 2005-06, the average gross weekly cost of intensive care for adults and older people in Poole was 567 compared with the unitary authority average of 501. The average cost of residential and nursing care for older people in Poole was 528, compared with the unitary authority average of 416. Currently, 21 per cent. of the population is over the age of 65.
	A number of things have happened recently that have increased difficulties. An example is the concessionary fares scheme for the over-60s and those with disabilities, although many people welcomed it. Poole has a population of 137,000 and 36,000 residents over 60, and received 800,000 towards a total budget of 1.4 million to reimburse the bus operators. Torbay, which has a population of 132,000 and 34,000 residents over 60, received 1.254 million, significantly more than Poole. Surprise surprise, the scheme in Poole is showing an overspend of 440,000. That is another burden that will fall on council tax payers.
	There are many more things I could say, but time is limited. We suffer from a formula that disadvantages us and does not take account of the pockets of deprivation in Poole. My constituency is very mixed, and the circumstances of people living a mile apart may be very different. There is a strong feeling among members of all parties and no party in Poole that we are being unfairly treated. The campaign for fair funding for Poole is gathering thousands of signatures in the shopping centres. On most Saturdays both Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors are out gathering the signatures, which will be presented at a future date. People feel very upset about the way in which the grant is being distributed.
	There is a more important point, however. We might accept our place in the lower half of the table given our position in relation to areas that are rather more deprived, but the gap is widening at a great rate. A great deal of what happens in local government results from national pay agreements. It costs just as much to empty a bin or to employ a teacher in Poole as anywhere else, but it is difficult to provide the same level of service when we do not receive the same level of funding of education, for instance, as many other parts of the United Kingdom. I am not saying that our outcomes are poor. Dorset is very good at delivering good local government outcomes, but it is much harder to do that with a poor funding formula.
	I am glad that the Minister has been present at least to listen to what I said and to what was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Perhaps she will reflect on the fact that people feel they are being treated unfairly. There ought to be more transparency in the system, so that those people can see more clearly why they are in their present position.
	Recent grant changes have probably made it rather more difficult to delve into the formula and argue about the methodology. Sometimes people look at the figures and do not quite understand them. I hope that if I do not receive answers from the Minister today, we may be able to exchange correspondence to generate at least a better understanding of our relative positions. I also hope that we can have another debate in the future about why Poole should be treated more fairly so that it can continue to deliver first-class local services.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing a debate on an issue that I know is close to his heart. It has given us a useful opportunity to discuss Poole and local government funding. I want to praise the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised his case. At times we can all speak in the House with passion and commitment, but at other times, when our case is somewhat weaker, we find it more difficult to do so. The hon. Gentleman had a difficult case to make, and he made it well. The people of Poole should be proud that he represented them as he did.
	Let me outline the local government funding position. The Government will provide 65.8 billion in 2007-08, an increase of 3.1 billion, or 4.9 per cent., on the previous year's funding. Formula grant will make up 25.6 billion of that total in 2007-08, an increase of 3.7 per cent. on a like-for-like basis. I shall say more about that, because I think there has been a misunderstanding and that I can help the hon. Gentleman.
	The settlement confirms the increased investment announced last year as part of the first stable and truly predictable local government settlement. Allocations for all English local authorities were announced for 2006-07 and 2007-08. We examined the spending pressures with local government. In 2007-08, there is extra provision, over and above the previous plans, of 508 million, following the representations that were made to us. Looking ahead, we are committed to securing a sustainable three-year settlement for local government in the comprehensive spending review 2007, and are working closely with local government to achieve that. We recognise that local government needs that stability and an assurance about what the funding will be.
	There has been a continued real-terms increase in investment in local government, which will allow authorities to continue to deliver effective services at a cost that is affordable for them and for local residents. The increase in total Government grant for local services since 1997 is 39 per cent. in real termsthat is 39 per cent. higher than inflation.
	On the calculation of formula grant, I take on board the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about complexity. It is not a case of not wanting to be transparent. It is just that the way to reach a fair settlementthe basis of the approach has existed since 1981is relatively complex. The system of distributing grant to councils according to a formula that reflects the relative needs of an area and the ability to pay council tax in that area is not new.
	As I said, the broad approach to reaching a formula has existed since 1981. However, last year, we reformed the grant calculation system itself. The new system has the advantage of removing the old assumptions about spending and tax from the calculation of grant. As a result, it devolves more accountability to local authorities. Grant distribution is now determined by four things: a relative needs formula; an amount relative to the resources that can be raised locally based on the property profile; a central allocation per head; and grant damping.
	The relative needs and resource elements should be broadly familiar to hon. Members, since the system has long contained formulaic estimates of relative need, and of relative ability to raise council tax. The central allocation makes explicit what was always implicit in the system: that after taking account of differences in relative needs and resources, some of the grant is allocated on a per capita basis.
	We are continuing to protect all local authorities from detrimental changes to their grant allocation through the floor damping mechanism. Local government agrees that stability is an important consideration in the grant distribution system. Floors guarantee a minimum year-on-year grant increase and curb the volatility of grant levels for individual local authorities, thus providing the degree of stability that local authorities requested. I too regard stability as a key issue in local government funding. I have made it clear that the grant floor is a long-term part of the funding system.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about Poole. I will try to assist him, but I will also write to him if that is helpful. Poole will receive 23.209 million of formula grant in 2007-08, and that is a 2.7 per cent. increase on a like-for-like basis. Poole benefits from the floor protection by 65,564.
	The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to show me his figures and to raise his concerns before the debate. The figures that he has from Poole council suggest that it has had only a 1.7 per cent. increase. Those are incorrect inasmuch as they are not comparing like for like. The figure on which the 2.7 per cent. is calculated is a like-for-like figure, adjusting last year's figure to reflect the basis on which this year's figure is paid.
	That has been made clear to Poole council. I understand that the matter is complex, and I appreciate the work of finance officers and experts in local government. As a former finance officer in local government myself, I can understand the difficulties that are sometimes faced but it has been explained that that is a like-for-like figure.

Robert Syms: I think that, when the announcement was made, I heard the 2.7 per cent., but not the caveats. That is perhaps where we differ.

Angela Smith: Rather than caveats, I prefer to say explanation. It is to do with the change in funding capital. That is what makes the difference. By looking just at the pure cash terms increase, one does not compare what the grant is for one year with what it is for another year. That may be a helpful comparison, and I will put that in writing to the hon. Gentleman, but the council has had that information.
	I have to say that I did not recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I will admitI think everyone in the House wouldthat local government finance is a pretty complex subject. I studied for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy exam for two years, and I was somewhat relieved when I was no longer a CIPFA student.
	Taking formula grant and schools funding together, in 2002-03, Poole received a total of 68.4 million formula grant and had a population estimated at 140,492. That is equivalent to a per head figure of 486. In 2007-08, Poole will receive 23.2 million of formula grant and provisionally 64.5 million of dedicated schools grants and it has a population projected at 137,644, making a total of 637 per head.
	I appreciate that all councils everywhere wish that their grant increases were greater, but those figures hardly square with the picture being painted by Poole council that somehow it is being deprived of funding to which it is entitled. Local government agrees that stability is important. The floor damping system is in place to guarantee a minimum year-on-year grant increase and curb the volatility of grant levels that some local authorities saw in the past. Poole is protected by that floor.
	It may be helpful if I say something about the way in which local government grant is formulated. The formula grant settlement is designed so that more grant will go to those authorities with a greater need to spend on servicesfor example, they may have high deprivation levelsand a low tax base, than to those authorities that have a small need to spend on services and a high tax base. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for Poole said, that Poole has pockets of deprivationall areas have pockets of deprivation. That is why the deprivation index will take into account the level of deprivation in an area. There are areas of the country that have a higher level of deprivation than Poole.
	In Poole's campaign, it has drawn funding comparisons with areas such as Manchester, Leicester, Middlesbrough and Bournemouth. All those areas have significantly higher deprivation indicators than Poole and therefore would expect to receive more money to deliver their services. One of the deprivation indicators used in the formula is the percentage of people aged 18 to 64 who are, or whose partner is, in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance or the guarantee element of pensions credit. That takes into account the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the higher number of pensioners in Poole.
	The areas with which Poole has chosen to draw comparisons in its campaign have high levels of deprivation. I am surprised that they were chosen and not others. Manchester has a level of deprivation of 18.3 per cent. The figure is 17.2 per cent. for Middlesbrough, 13.6 per cent. for Leicester and 8.9 per cent. for Bournemouth. Poole's deprivation figure is 5.8 per cent. I am sure that it is grateful that that is well below the national average of 8.5 per cent. According to those figures, it is not correct to claim that the settlement is unfair.
	The hon. Gentleman's council could have chosen to make comparisons with other unitary authorities such as Wokingham, Rutland or Windsor and Maidenhead, but Poole chose not to make those comparisons because it does not suit its campaign. It would be fair to look at the relative funding and relative need in other areas to get a broad comparison, not just choose areas that suit the council's case.
	Poole's relative ability to pay council tax is higher than that in many other areas. That is expressed in terms of the council tax baseroughly, the number of band D, two-adult equivalent households per head. Poole's tax base is higher than average, at 0.41 compared to 0.36 for England and for Torbay, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned. So Poole has a lower-than-average level of deprivation and a higher-than-average tax base, and that is based on the principles of the 1981 formula, which has been updated. It is therefore expected that Poole will meet a higher-than-average proportion of its expenditure from council tax.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned that Poole has benefited from other Government grants. It disappoints me sometimes that councils that have benefited in other ways from Government grants fail to acknowledge that. I was grateful for the hon. Lady's recognition that Poole had benefited in that respect.
	The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poole asked for more transparency in the system. I have already drawn attention to the complexity of local government funding. We are awaiting Sir Michael Lyons' report; we hope to see it relatively soon. It may show us a way forward. We need to consider that possibility. I have provided some understanding and some transparency this evening. Perhaps, in the future, the system will be less complexwe will have to see what is in Sir Michael's report.
	The hon. Member for Poole mentioned the fact that a greater proportion of Poole's expenditure comes from council tax than Government grant. Given the increase in Government grant from the formula that has been given to Poole, I hope that this does not lead Poole council to consider a higher than expected council tax increase for local residents. Investment has been made in Poole council and councils everywhere, and local residents would be somewhat dismayed if the council tax increase were too high.
	There is one other point that I want to make, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it in the spirit in which it is intended. The campaign against the formula seems rather late in the day. He has said that his councillors are out every Saturday in the high street collecting names at their street stalls for a petition. Given that local elections are looming, I wonder whether the campaign's timing has more to do with that. I hope that I am wrong.

Robert Syms: I can assure the Minister that these matters are raised even in non-election years and that Liberal and Conservative councillors, who will be fighting each other fiercely in May, are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue, which is about fairness to Poole.

Angela Smith: I am glad to hear it.

Annette Brooke: The Liberal Democrats have been very keen to ensure that there was a technical case to back up the argument for fair funding, appreciating that it is not good enough simply to say, It's not fair. The Minister probably does not want to assist a council in getting more money, but perhaps the council could be given some direction in examining the deprivation calculations, to make sure that Poole is receiving everything that it should. It would be helpful for the town to know precisely to where it should look to make its case, rather than simply saying, It's not fair.

Angela Smith: That was a helpful and interesting intervention. The hon. Lady's party generally talks about council tax and taxation in terms of the redistributive effect. Looking at the deprivation index and people's ability to pay would deal with the points that her party normally makes. She is right to talk about the need to make a technical case. Of course, any information presented to the Government on a council's behalf is always taken into account. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman made representations to the Minister for Local Government on this very issue before the announcement, and my hon. Friend has responded to him. So the case was made beforehand, but any case that the council wishes to make to the Government will of course be considered in the usual way; we are happy to do that.
	The hon. Gentleman is a consistent campaigner for his area and he has put his case as well as he could, but we are not persuaded by it. He is arguing for a complete change in the formula, which has been used for many years. Sir Michael Lyons will be reporting on the best way forward in paying for local services, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to have an input when that report is published. We believe that we have provided a good settlement overall. I was astounded to hear the hon. Lady say that the Minister will not want to give local councils more money. This Government have provided local authorities with a 39 per cent. increase in real terms since 1997. We believe that this is a fair settlement for local government that offers protection from the grant floor. However, it is up to local councils to set reasonable budgets and acceptable council tax levels, and to deliver good quality services to their residents.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his case. We will consider his comments and I will write to him about the specific points that he raised.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.